MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298351591

Marine Protected Areas: Legal Framework for the Gully Off the Coast of Nova Scotia (Canada)

2009· article· en· W2298351591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Macnab, David VanderZwaag

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarine protected areaContext (archaeology)ZoningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningCorporate governanceGeographyBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEcologyLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gully, a submarine canyon hosting a rich diversity of marine life off Nova Scotia, was designated in 2004 under Canada’s Oceans Act 1996 as a marine protected area (MPA). This case study reviews the Gully MPA legal and management framework through a five-part discussion. First described is the overall Canadian law and policy context for establishing MPAs. Next, specific legislative and regulatory provisions governing the Gully MPA are summarized including the three types of management zones adopted, ranging from strict preservation to multi-use. Management approaches to control human activities in and around the MPA are then described, with a focus on the Gully Marine Protected Area Management Plan. Ongoing management challenges are highlighted including implementation of the ecosystem approach, unresolved legal issues, such as what constitutes a disturbance of the Gully MPA for prosecution purposes, and governance limitations, in particular limited financial and human resources. The case study concludes with lessons to be learned from the Gully MPA experience. Key lessons include: the time-consuming nature of MPA establishment, the usefulness of multi purpose zoning, the need for a multi-agency approach, the value of strong communication with user groups, the importance of linking MPA designation to integrated management planning, and the need for ongoing law and policy review.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207