Harvest Strategies for a Transboundary Resource: Georges Bank Haddock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eastern Georges Bank haddock resource is shared and managed by the U.S. and Canada through a transboundary resource sharing agreement. This agreement includes an annual process for joint stock assessment, setting of a TAC, and harvest shares for each country. The resource sharing agreement provides a mechanism for establishing bilateral action by both countries, but covers only part of the total haddock stock on Georges Bank. The resource sharing agreement does not apply to non-Georges Bank haddock stocks in the U.S. and Canada. Haddock is an important source of income for U.S. and Canadian fishermen and is a commodity that is traded between the two countries. Thus, management decisions taken under the transboundary sharing agreement have implications for domestic markets in the U.S. and Canada and through trade links between the two countries. This paper explores the implications of pursuing different harvest strategies between the U.S. and Canada within an institutional setting that requires bilateral control over a portion of potential haddock supplies, yet provides opportunities to take unilateral action that could affect international trade and prices received by domestic fishermen in both countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".