Les pêches de l’URSS dans l’Atlantique du Nord-Est et l’élargissement des zones de pêche exclusive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the last war, the USSR set it self to increase the development of its ocean fisheries from its two North-East Atlantic seaboards on the Barents Sea and the Baltic. With a modernized fleet and almost complete freedom on the seas, its catch increased six fold between 1950 and 1976, going from 0,4 to 2,5 million tons per year, and Soviet fishermen could be found roaming on all the seas bordering Europe. However, as from 1977, this expansion was fiercely curtailed when coastal nations, including the USSR, established the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or mere exclusive fishing zone (EFZ), each being alloted almost all of its living resource s. More fishing grounds were lost by the USSR than gained, to the point where production suddenly fell in 1977 and it had to turn to fish of lesser quality, often used for industrial purposes, such as the Capelin (Mallotus villosus) and the blue Whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) which today make up to 60 % of all its catch off Northern Europe. The Soviet authorities reacted with flexibility and diversity, namely by increased fishing in the national exclusive zone, particularly in the Barents Sea, through negotiations leading to access rights to foreign waters, particularly those of Norway and the Faeroe Islands, and through a policy whereby it could purchase unprocessed fish from some members of the EEC. Thus Russian factory ships came to the British coasts to process mackerel delivered to them at sea by English and Scottish fishermen. It is through such a strategy of diversification, various examples of which may be found around the world, that the Soviets have succeeded in regaining grounds lost in 1977 and in reaching an average production of 1,7 million tons from 1977 to 1983 in the North-East Atlantic, this being 3 to 4 % less than that of 1970-76, notwithstanding the few purchases of fish made directly at sea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".