MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135879635 · doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0732

Addressing ecosystem effects of fishing using marine protected areas

2000· article· en· W2135879635 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsFishingMarine protected areaLimitingEcosystemMarine ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem-based managementFisheries managementFisheryMarine conservationEnvironmental scienceEcologyHabitatEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a synthesis of the current literature on the potential of marine protected areas (MPAs) a useful management tool for limiting the ecosystem effects of fishing, including biological and socio-economic aspects. There is sufficient evidence that fishing may negatively affect ecosystems. Modelling and case studies show that the establishment of MPAs, especially for overexploited populations, can mitigate ecosystem effects of fishing. Although quantitative ecosystem modelling techniques incorporating MPAs are in their infancy, their role in exploring scenarios is considered crucial. Success in implementing MPAs will depend on how well the biological concerns and the socio-economic needs of the fishing community can be reconciled.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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