MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747006719 · doi:10.1080/00908320490467332

An Evaluation of the Modular Approach to the Assessment and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems

2004· article· en· W2747006719 on OpenAlexaff
Hanling Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Development & International Law · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designAction planContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceEnvironmental resource managementAction (physics)Ecosystem approachEcosystem-based managementPrincipal (computer security)EcosystemMarine ecosystemPlan (archaeology)Process managementBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceEcologyEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This contribution discusses the modular approach to the assessment and management of large marine ecosystems (LMEs). It addresses the contents and functions of the five modules; the key elements and processes of the transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA), strategic action program (SAP), and national action plan (NAP) in the LME context; the principal common problems facing LMEs and their causes identified in TDAs and action plans formulated in SAPs, as the results of the practical application of the modular approach in LME projects. It also evaluates the significance of the modular approach for international ocean governance. It concludes that this integrated, ecosystem-based approach has rectified some deficiencies of the traditional sectoral approaches and has improved the understanding of LMEs and their management regimes. As a result the integrated, ecosystem-based approach is increasingly being endorsed in international governance of LMEs.­

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean Development & International LawSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207