MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724311541 · doi:10.1111/faf.12231

What the past tells us about the future of Pacific salmon research

2017· article· en· W2724311541 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard J. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsFisheries scienceFisheryRest (music)Face (sociological concept)Fisheries ResearchRelevance (law)Fish <Actinopterygii>Climate changeAquaculturePolitical scienceFisheries managementOceanographySociologyFishingLawSocial scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Larkin lectures are held every two years at the University of British Columbia in recognition of Dr. Peter Larkin's contributions to fisheries science. The lecture I presented in November 2015 coincided with an announcement that the Institute of Fisheries that Peter Larkin founded in the 1960s would be restructured as the “Institute for Oceans and Fisheries” with an emphasis on fisheries and oceans issues important to British Columbia as well as the rest of the world. I decided to look back at research issues that Peter Larkin thought would be important for Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.) in the future and see what has happened as a way of identifying the complexity that the Institute for Oceans and Fisheries in particular and the science community in general will face. I chose five themes from Peter Larkin's talks: 1 understanding marine survival, 2 ocean carrying capacity, 3 aquaculture, 4 climate, Pacific salmon and climate change and 5 informing the public, and then added my opinion about research priorities for the future. Peter Larkin recognized the future relevance of these examples, but he probably could not have imagined how these and related issues will challenge his renamed institute and the rest of the research community over the next 50 years.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207