MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108656229 · doi:10.1111/faf.12032

China's distant‐water fisheries in the 21st century

2013· article· en· W2108656229 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Pauly, Dyhia Belhabib, Roland Blomeyer, William W. L. Cheung, Andrés M. Cisneros‐Montemayor, Duncan Copeland, Sarah Harper, Vicky W. Y. Lam, Yining Mai, Frédéric Le Manach, Henrik Österblom, Ka Man Mok, Liesbeth van der Meer, Antonio Vicente Martínez Sanz, Soohyun Shon, U. Rashid Sumaila, Wilf Swartz, Reg Watson, Yunlei Zhai, Dirk Zeller

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaPew Charitable Trusts
KeywordsChinaFishingGeographyDistribution (mathematics)FisherySocioeconomicsArchaeologyBiologyMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We conservatively estimate the distant‐water fleet catch of the People's Republic of China for 2000–2011, using a newly assembled database of reported occurrence of Chinese fishing vessels in various parts of the world and information on the annual catch by vessel type. Given the unreliability of official statistics, uncertainty of results was estimated through a regionally stratified Monte Carlo approach, which documents the presence and number of Chinese vessels in Exclusive Economic Zones and then multiplies these by the expected annual catch per vessel. We find that China, which over‐reports its domestic catch, substantially under‐reports the catch of its distant‐water fleets. This catch, estimated at 4.6 million t year−1 (95% central distribution, 3.4–6.1 million t year−1) from 2000 to 2011 (compared with an average of 368 000 t·year−1 reported by China to FAO), corresponds to an ex‐vessel landed value of 8.93 billion € year−1 (95% central distribution, 6.3–12.3 billion). Chinese distant‐water fleets extract the largest catch in African waters (3.1 million t year−1, 95% central distribution, 2.0–4.4 million t), followed by Asia (1.0 million t year−1, 0.56–1.5 million t), Oceania (198 000 t year−1, 144 000–262 000 t), Central and South America (182 000 t year−1, 94 000–299 000 t) and Antarctica (48 000 t year−1, 8 000–129 000 t). The uncertainty of these estimates is relatively high, but several sources of inaccuracy could not be fully resolved given the constraints inherent in the underlying data and method, which also prevented us from distinguishing between legal and illegal catch.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations199
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207