The Precautionary Approach and risk management: can they increase the probability of successes in fishery management?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable progress has been made in the implementation of the Precautionary Approach to the protection of fish stocks, but applying the Precautionary Approach to the protection of fishing communities lags considerably. The principle of intergenerational equity, one of the main tenets of the Precautionary Approach, and the principle of sustainable utilization both imply that the Precautionary Approach should explicitly incorporate the protection of fishing communities, not only the resources they depend on. Risk assessment aims primarily at evaluating the consequences of various harvest strategies in terms of probabilistic statements about future trends in yields, biomass, and dangers to the stock, while risk management involves finding and implementing management policies, strategies, and tactics that reduce the risk to the communities exploiting them. Not all fishery management approaches deal equally well with risk, with some compounding rather than reducing risk. Portfolio management, whereby fishing enterprises have the ability to choose among a diverse portfolio of harvestable resources, would mitigate against the risk of fluctuations in the abundance, availability, or price of individual species. Although much remains to be achieved in better assessing risk, fishery management agencies should immediately implement risk management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".