Salmonid stocking in five North Atlantic jurisdictions: Identifying drivers and barriers to policy change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New knowledge challenges long‐established practices of fish stocking and transfer because of increasing scientific consensus that the release of cultivated fish can pose risks to biodiversity; however, stocking can also improve fisheries, creating difficult decision trade‐offs regarding its use. Accordingly, controversy persists about fish stocking and transfer. No studies, however, have embraced a multinational perspective to understand the important governance dimensions of the success and failure of salmonid stocking and transfer policies. The present study has analysed the historical development and contemporary governance of the stocking and transfer of native and non‐native salmonids of the generaSalmo,Salvelinus, andOncorhynchusin five legislative units around the North Atlantic Ocean: the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. The study is based on the analyses of published and unpublished literature, and a survey of experts. Current salmonid stocking policies and practices varied significantly among jurisdictions; the degree of policy change varied, from radical and rapid changesde jureandde factoin Atlantic Canada and Norway to incremental mostlyde jurechanges in France and Germany. Rapid policy change in Atlantic Canada, Norway, and partly in Sweden can be explained by the socio‐political importance of salmonid fisheries, stocking regulations based on policy objectives to conserve wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), well‐documented examples of the harmful consequences of transfers of non‐native species, and well‐developed vertical governance linkages. The policy changes resemble that of the ‘punctuated equilibrium policy framework’. By contrast, France and Germany place less socio‐political emphasis on salmonids, have stocking regulations less directed at wild salmonids, more local‐level decision making, more species‐rich fish communities, and little evidence of adverse ecological impacts of the transfer and stocking of salmonids. This has led to small, incremental changes in stocking policyde factothat are reflective of the ‘advocacy coalition policy framework’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".