MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588468583 · doi:10.1111/faf.12212

Impacts of climate change for coastal fishers and implications for fisheries

2017· article· en· W2588468583 on OpenAlexafffund
Valentina Savo, Cedar Morton, Dana Lepofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsTula FoundationSimon Fraser University
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsClimate changeGeographyFishingSubsistence agricultureDiversification (marketing strategy)FisheryLivelihoodPsychological resilienceFisheries managementEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceAgricultureBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coastal Social–Ecological Systems (SESs) are subject to several stresses, including climate change, that challenge fisheries and natural resource management. Fishers are front‐line observers of changes occurring both on the coast and in the sea and are among the first people to be affected by these changes. In this study, we perform a meta‐analysis of observations and adaptations to climate change by subsistence‐oriented coastal fishers extracted from a global review of peer‐reviewed and grey literature. Fishers' observations compiled from across the globe indicate increased temperatures and changes in weather patterns, as well as coastal erosion, sea level rise and shifts in species range and behaviours. Coastal areas offer a wide array of resources for diversifying livelihoods, but climate change is reducing these options. Specifically, climate change could reduce the resilience of fishers' communities, limiting options for diversification or forcing fishers to abandon their houses or villages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations75
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207