MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159580663 · doi:10.1002/fsh.10614

Regaining Lost Protections: Status of the Revisions to the Canadian Fisheries Act

2021· article· en· W3159580663 on OpenAlex
Jack Imhof, N. W. R. Lapointe, Serge Metikosh, Caleb T. Hasler

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegCanadian Wildlife FederationDucks Unlimited Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Fisheries Act (Act), a long-standing Act protecting fisheries in Canada, was changed in 2012 to redefine its central purpose to the management of fisheries in Canada. Along with this refocus were changes that appeared to reduce protections for habitat and all fish. After an outcry by scientists, Indigenous peoples, and environmental organizations, the Act was revised in 2019 to “restore lost protections” thought to have been lost in the 2012 changes. To a large degree most of the “lost protections” have been restored, while other portions of the 2012 Act have been maintained. Challenges remain under the amended Act in efficiently implementing development and conservation projects while achieving the newly clarified purpose of the Act—the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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