MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495885520 · doi:10.1007/s13437-016-0110-z

Review of fishing safety policies in Canada with respect to extreme environmental conditions and climate change effects

2016· article· en· W2495885520 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sara Rezaee, Mary R. Brooks, Ronald Pelot

Bibliographic record

VenueWMU Journal of Maritime Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie University
FundersMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsFishingClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental planningExtreme weatherEnvironmental safetyEnvironmental scienceFisheryEnvironmental healthEcologyHuman health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. Numerous research studies have been carried out to improve fishing safety from many different perspectives. Several of these studies focused on the relationship between environmental factors, climate change effects, and fishing safety. This paper aims to suggest a knowledge mobilization structure that translates findings of this type of research into input of evidence-based decision making and consequently improve and update fishing policies with respect to fishing safety and environmental conditions. Significant safety factors extracted from related literature are stability of vessels, fisheries management, safety equipment, communication, insurance, training, safety information and culture, weather forecasts, fatigue, and search and rescue planning. The paper then reviews policies related to these factors to examine if they address extreme environmental conditions and climate change effects. The paper presents recommendations to improve general fishing safety with respect to short- and long-term environmental considerations.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWMU Journal of Maritime AffairsSame topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207