MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574960298 · doi:10.1177/0020702016632146

Fishing for a Solution: Canada's Fisheries Relations with the European Union, 1977–2013, by Donald Barry, Bob Applebaum, and Earl Wiseman

2016· article· en· W2574960298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raymond B. Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingEuropean unionJurisdictionForeign policyGovernment (linguistics)Foreign relationsSubject (documents)Political scienceLawSociologyEconomic historyHistoryPoliticsInternational tradeEconomicsLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Raymond B. Blake, University of ReginaA former professor and colleague at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick regularly asked students in his diplomatic history course to trace the smell of fish through the history of Canada's foreign relations. His was a historical approach to Canada's diplomatic history, and I suspect that in many Canadian universities where the history of Canada's foreign relations is still taught, fish get very little attention. However, as the authors of Fishing for a Solution ably demonstrate, fisheries still matter in Canada's foreign relations. The authors, all well versed in fisheries policy from their academic and government roles, bring both a historical understanding and first-hand experience to the subject. From 1977, when Canada extended its jurisdiction over much of the continental shelf, to 2013, when there were few fish left to catch off Canada's east coast, two of the authors were engaged in making fisheries policy in Canada's relations with the European Union (EU). The third is a leading academic who has written widely on Canada's fishery policy.This is a remarkably detailed and insightful account of Canada's relations with the EU over the catching of fish in the North Atlantic. The authors convincingly argue that international relations stand at the intersection of domestic and external policies. In this case study, they contend that factors at several different levels impact the Canada-EU relationship. Canada and the EU interact with each other as members of the international community, of course, but their fisheries policies are influenced by subnational units--provinces in Canada and member states in the EU. Canada's east coast provinces, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, have usually demanded (without much success) a voice in the articulation of fisheries policy. In the EU, Spain and Portugal have exerted considerable pressure on fisheries policy within the EU councils. Although the book recognizes that, in Canada's case, domestic matters have frequently influenced fisheries policy, the focus here is more on the internal dynamics and politics within the EU.The book begins with Canada's decision in 1977 to extend its jurisdiction over fisheries and mineral wealth 200 miles offshore. It was a buoyant period for Canada's fishery, when many thought that the new policy would usher in a period of expansion and prosperity for Canada's fishers. So confident was Canada that it was willing to share it bounty within the 200-mile exclusive zone and subsequently negotiated agreements with European nations that had historically fished off the east coast. Canada believed that the new agreements realized effective conservation measures while achieving access to European markets for Canadian fish exports. It gave the Europeans access to species Canada did not value and fish that were surplus to domestic needs. However, Canadian exporters soon discovered that EU countries were reluctant to open their markets to Canadian fish imports and within a short period, the rush to harvest fish both within and outside the 200-mile zone resulted in dwindling catches from overfishing.The focus in this book, however, is not so much the events leading to the destruction of the fish stocks off Canada's east coast but Canada's attempts to establish long-term agreements on fishing on the continental shelf with the EU. The situation became much more complicated in 1985 when Spain and Portugal joined the EU. Both nations have large fishing industries and their powerful fishing regions exerted a strong influence on state policies. Spain and Portugal forced the EU to challenge what they considered Canada's restrictive management approach to conservation even though that approach was gaining momentum in Canada and indeed throughout the EU. Spain and Portugal quickly took advantage of the dreadful procedure within the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), an international organization to monitor and control fishing in the North Atlantic that allowed member states that disagreed with the quotas set for each member simply to dismiss them and set their own autonomous quotas. …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0250.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207