Canada–USA Bilateral Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Maine: Under the Radar Screen
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the USA have developed a series of cooperative initiatives that address transboundary fisheries issues in the Gulf of Maine. The Canada–USA Steering Committee serves as an umbrella forum for discussing and coordinating transboundary management measures. Through the work of the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee and the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee, the Steering Committee has overseen the development of joint scientific stock assessments and a sharing agreement for groundfish resources in the vicinity of the eastern Georges Bank. The bilateral Fisheries Enforcement Agreement helps ensure the success of such cooperative management initiatives by combating illegal fishing in the vicinity of the international boundary. However, the largely informal ‘under the radar screen’ arrangements, while positive on many fronts, to date fall short of fully implementing key principles of sustainable development, such as public participation, the ecosystem approach, integration and precaution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it