MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2795831977

Underwater community gardens? Exploring community-based marine aquaculture as a coastal resource management strategy in Nova Scotia, Canada [graduate project].

2017· article· en· W2795831977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Bradford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningLivelihoodAquacultureStakeholderResource (disambiguation)OperationalizationEcosystem-based managementGeographyNova scotiaBusinessFisheryEcosystemPolitical scienceEcologyEnvironmental scienceAgricultureComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquaculture is one of the world’s fastest growing food production sectors and presents an opportunity for rural, coastal community development that can support livelihoods. An ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) has been recommended to facilitate socially and environmentally sustainable development, yet there remains a need to better involve people in planning and operational aspects. Community-based management presents a possible option to advance an EAA in this way; however, context-specific research is needed to understand its potential application and suitability. This research explores community-based marine aquaculture (CBMA) in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada, on provincial and local-scales, using a mixed methods approach, which includes stakeholder interviews, geographic information system (GIS) analysis, and surveys, to examine its suitability as a coastal resource management strategy. Findings suggest that CBMA is a feasible approach to future aquaculture development in NS and its possible implementation is conceptualized. This research also initiates pilot methods that can be used to determine suitability of coastal communities, which factor the importance of community perceptions into the planning and operationalization process. Although this research was undertaken in the context of NS, it has implications that can help to further opportunities for CBMA in other regions of the world, supporting the advancement of the EAA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies→French-language works237,207→