International stakeholder dialogue on pulse fisheries : report of the second dialogue meeting, Amsterdam, 20 January 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fisheries Director at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs welcomes a broad range of participants from eight countries to the dialogue meeting (for participant lists, see annex 1).She acknowledges that the Dutch are proud of the pulse trawl and consider it to be a sustainable alternative to the traditional beam-trawl.The Dutch have optimised the technique.But in the process, they forgot to take along the stakeholders and have not been so transparent.In their ambition, they have pushed on the development side of the trawl and getting the legislative approval.It appeared, however, that different groups of stakeholders from other countries had concerns; for example on impacts of fishing with electricity on marine organisms and control and enforcement.The Ministry of Economic Affairs therefore decided on a new approach that focusses on being transparent on benefits, questions and concerns.This process was started in July 2015 with the first international dialogue meeting held in Scheveningen.Many of the questions and concerns raised at that meeting then fed into the multi-annual research programme that is currently being carried out.In addition to the research side, a lot has happened on technique and on control and enforcement.At this dialogue meeting there will be parallel breakout sessions on:1. Into the working of pulse fishing -transition beam/pulse and scale models (section 2.2.1) 2. Setting the scene -research in hindsight and forecast (section 2.2.2) 3. Control & Enforcement -lessons learnt and developments (section 2.2.3) 4. Elaboration -Scope and regionalisation within EU -broader scope (section 2.2.4)
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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".