Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fisheries conflict may be determined as satisfied claims to fishery recourses of one subject of fisheries if they contradict to the interests of other subject of The fisheries conflicts arise as a rule as a result of the overfishing and deficit of the fisheries recourses. The most number of conflicts are in the international fisheries, when they occur between countries of the fisheries recourses origin and countries of distant sea fisheries. However they may occur on the national level too. The historical period from the end of XIX Century to the nowadays is examined. Mainly the conflicts in the north Pacific are considered, but another ones in the north Atlantic and ANTCOM Convention zone are adduced too. The conflicts between the USA and Canada concerning the sockeye salmon of Fraser River and the Bering Sea halibut are considered in detail. Before NPAFC establishment, the conflict existed between interests of Japan and other countries of salmons origin (Canada, US and Russia). At that time the conflicts arose inside of Japan, too: between fishermen and government, and among the fishermen for the government subsidy to narrow salmon fishery, and other. The latent conflict in the Japan Sea concerning the common mackerel of the Tsushima Strait, and the other one on snow crab of the Yamato Rise are considered, as well. Besides, conflicts are able to occur between countries-participants of an international agreement on fisheries and countries not participating in the agreement. The conflicts may be solved by political methods (as international agreement) or economical methods (as trade sanctions). Sometimes enforcement may be applied, including armed conflict. An attempt has been done to classify the fishery conflicts and the methods of their solving.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".