No Ordinary Fish Tale: Working Toward a Transnational Solution to the Cod Crisis in the Gulf of Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) survey that showed “record-low levels of abundance” of groundfish in the Gulf of Maine (“Gulf”), local fisherman Brian Pearce asserted: “It concerns [me] that what [NOAA is] saying and what we [the local fishermen] are seeing is such a contrast . . . . Who sees more fish in the ocean than the fishermen?” Despite Mr. Pearce’s skepticism, the state of the cod fishery in the Gulf of Maine—home to “critical” and “legendary" fishing grounds in Canadian and American territories—is, in fact, dire. According to the NOAA survey, conducted in August 2014, the cod population within the Gulf has dwindled to an estimated 2100 metric tons—an all-time low. To make matters worse, young cod, which generate cod production through “spawning,” have all but disappeared, as cod within the Gulf are spawning at an estimated three to four percent of what is considered a sustainable level. Quite simply, the current state of the cod fishery in the Gulf is “nothing short of Armageddon.”
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".