Shifting baselines and social license to operate: Challenges in communicating sea lamprey control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) invaded the Great Lakes in the early twentieth century and caused considerable economic and ecological harm. People who fished the Great Lakes suffered crippling losses and successfully lobbied elected officials in Canada and the United States to create a sea lamprey control program which the Great Lakes Fishery Commission implements under the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. The control program relies on two primary methods: chemical lampricides and physical barriers. Sea lamprey control has been a tremendous success; although the urgency to act is apparent to certain publics and although control methods are deemed by professionals to be safe and effective, continued public advocacy for and acceptance of the control program is not ensured. Many people in the control program are concerned that the urgency to act is not commensurate with the risk sea lampreys continue to pose and that societal acceptance of the primary control methods could wane. This commentary reflects on issues of “shifting baselines” (changes in perceived risk) and the “social license to operate” (trust in authorities to make responsible decisions regarding current and planned control methods) and suggests a course to better understand these issues. Improved understanding of these issues will inform communication efforts for all involved in the control program. Moreover, the case examined here is potentially relevant and informative for other environmentally related actions where there may be erosion of the social license.
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 | 0.024 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".