Marine Forecasting and Fishing Safety: Improving the Fit between Forecasts and Harvester Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Weather is a key source of marine risk, but relationships between fishing activity, safety, and weather remain poorly understood. Critically, the fit between available marine forecast products, fish harvesters’ needs, and harvester’s decision-making processes has not been rigorously assessed. This paper addresses these gaps by documenting a) weather-related decision-making by harvesters, and its relationship to forecasts across multiple regions and fisheries on Canada’s East coast (Newfoundland) and b) the dynamics of forecast production priorities.Methods: A multi-disciplinary, community-engaged research approach, conducted in partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesting Safety Association (NL-FHSA). Data consist of semi-structured interviews with fish harvesters and weather forecasters, focused on marine forecast production and use.Results: Results emphasize that there is a subjective “art” to both production and use of marine forecasts. Forecasters and harvesters share several common values regarding forecasts, but different emphases: forecasters favor some combination of accuracy, consistency, and utility, while harvesters are largely concerned with utility. Finally, harvesters’ decision-making is based on nuanced and contextual interpretations of a few key hazards (winds and, to a lesser extent, waves).Conclusion: This community-engaged research has triggered experimentation with forecasts tailored to fisheries utility within Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). It lays the groundwork for ongoing, mutually beneficial dialogue between forecasters and harvesters, engaging harvesters with the forecasting process while familiarizing forecasters with harvester’s decision-making processes. Ongoing industry partnerships (NL-FHSA) continue to sustain momentum from this study towards further enhancing the utility of future marine forecasts for small-scale harvesters.
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 | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".