Fisheries, fish culture, tilapias and politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years much attention has been focused on dwindling marine fish stocks and the means available to counter the effects of this growing problem. Over fishing has been targeted as the main cause. Many newspaper and magazine articles on the subject of over fishing have been added to the growing scientific journal publications and books. Conservation measures are being implemented but their impacts will very likely not reverse the trend. One option to provide more fish for human consumption is through fish culture which, since traditional techniques began to be modernized in earnest in the 1950's, has been expanding rapidly. With the exception of production in China, efforts with the major carps have not been very productive, especially in tropical countries, and these and several other fishes currently in culture have relatively limited possibilities of substituting the shortfall of marine fish in the future. The tilapias, on the other hand, have shown much greater potential recently, and are increasingly marketed worldwide. In two or three decades, farming tilapias may prove to be the means of supplying a large quantity of fish to fill the increasing gap between demand and supply. Furthermore, tilapias can contribute additional resources through integration with traditional reservoir fisheries and rice-fish culture. This paper explores these growing changes in tilapia culture and inland fisheries especially in the tropics. We do not claim any deep knowledge nor are we predicting the economical and sociological impacts of the winds of change affecting fisheries worldwide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".