MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038801075 · doi:10.1163/24519391-00501008

Area-Based Marine Protection in Canada

2020· article· en· W3038801075 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna‐Maria Hubert, Stuart R. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarine protected areaLegislatureEnvironmental planningMarine conservationMarine biodiversityIndigenousEnvironmental protectionPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBusinessBiodiversityEcologyEnvironmental scienceHabitatLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, Canada has achieved significant progress in its efforts to meet its international and domestic commitments to area-based marine protection. It has now extended protections, in some form, to almost eight per cent of its coastal and ocean waters. However, critical issues remain concerning implementation. This article describes and critically analyses Canada’s progress on area-based marine protection in view of international principles, standards, and criteria. It provides an overview of the broader jurisdictional, legislative, and policy framework for area-based marine protection, before outlining the key federal legislative schemes that form Canada’s marine protected areas (mpas) network. It also discusses provincial (subnational) area-based marine protection, as well as new initiatives to establish offshore Indigenous protected and conserved areas, and highlights cooperative arrangements made with other states. Finally, it provides some future outlooks for area-based marine protection in Canada.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and PolicySame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207