MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602022672 · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.013

The best catch data that can possibly be? Rejoinder to Ye et al. “FAO's statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture”

2017· article· en· W2602022672 on OpenAlex
Daniel Pauly, Dirk Zeller

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPaul G. Allen Family Foundation
KeywordsSustainabilityAquacultureFisheryFood securityStatisticValue (mathematics)Fish <Actinopterygii>Fisheries managementPolitical scienceGeographyFishingEcologyStatisticsBiologyAgricultureMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we reply to a commentary by Ye et al. (Mar. Policy 2017; Ye et al.) on our article (Pauly and Zeller, 2017 [2]) commenting on FAO's interpretation of current fisheries trends in SOFIA 2016 (The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture). We show how arguments such as FAO's catch statistics being "the best they can possibly be", and other manifestations of FAO's difficulties in constructively engaging with comments compromises FAO's stated goal to engage with academia and civil society. This is particularly serious in an age where the value of an open scientific discourse is increasingly under threat, as is the food security of many poor countries in which fish supplied by domestic fisheries constitutes a strong component of local diets.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.298 · 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