Challenges for Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ecosystem approach is being promoted as the foundation of solutions to the unsustainability of fisheries. However, because the ecosystem approach is broadly inclusive, the science for its implementation is often considered to be overly complex and difficult. When the science needed for an ecosystem approach to fisheries is perceived this way, science products cannot keep pace with fisheries critics, thus encouraging partisan political interference in fisheries management and proliferation of “faith-based solutions. In this paper we argue that one way to effectively counter politicization of fisheries decision-making is to ensure that new ecosystem-based approaches in fisheries are viewed only as an emergent property of innovation in science and policy. We organize our essay using three major themes to focus the discussion: empirical, jurisdictional, and societal challenges. We undertake at least partial answers to the following questions: (1) has conventional fisheries management really failed?; (2) can short-comings in conventional fisheries management be augmented with new tools, such as allocation of rights?; (3) is the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) equivalent to Ecosystem-Based Management?; and (4) is restoration of degraded ecosystems a necessary component of an EAF? Received March 6, 2012; accepted April 26, 2012
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".