MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preventing Salmon Escapes from Aquaculture in Canada and the USA: Limited International Coordinates, Divergent Regulatory Currents and Possible Future Courses

2007· article· en· W3123453441 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tricia K. Barry, David VanderZwaag

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Community & International Environmental Law · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Environmental Law and Policies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquacultureContext (archaeology)FisheryPolitical scienceState (computer science)GeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementFish <Actinopterygii>EconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following an introductory review of the continuing problem of salmon escaping from aquaculture operations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America, and the considerable uncertainties over ecological impacts, this article examines the law and policy context for preventing escapes from three perspectives. First, the limited guidance for addressing aquaculture escapes under existing global and regional agreements/arrangements is highlighted. Second, how Canada and the USA have sought to control escape events at national and provincial/State levels is summarized. Third, possible future courses are identified, which improve the way salmon escapes are addressed, with stronger regional responses suggested as most promising. Enhancing the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization's role in preventing escapes and placing transboundary aquaculture issues on the agendas of North Pacific regional cooperative arrangements are the potential courses emphasized.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European Community & International Environmental LawSame topicInternational Environmental Law and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207