MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291676839 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv237

Fishing impacts on benthic ecosystems: an introduction to the 2014 ICES symposium special issue

2015· article· en· W2291676839 on OpenAlexaff
Lene Buhl‐Mortensen, Francis Neat, Mariano Koen‐Alonso, Carsten Hvingel, Børge Holte

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneFishingEcosystemBiodiversityMarine ecosystemEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementProductivityResilience (materials science)FisheryGeographyEcologyOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding the impacts of fishing on the seabed is a basic requirement for ecosystem-based marine management. It is only recently that we have begun understanding how fisheries-driven perturbations affect ecosystem function, biodiversity, productivity, and resilience. Technical solutions aimed at minimizing seabed impacts are starting to appear, but their efficacy remains to be demonstrated. In 2014, ICES held a symposium on the effects of fishing on benthic fauna, habitat, and ecosystem function, in Tromsø, Norway. The main goals of the symposium were to summarize current understanding of the physical and biological effects of fishing activities on benthic ecosystems, and to review the diversity of technical measures currently available to mitigate these effects. Here, we briefly describe the background to the scientific symposium and highlight the main contributions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207