Comment on “Five centuries of cod catches in eastern Canada,” by Schijns <i>et al</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Schijns et al. use a historical time series to inform a stock assessment model for the northern Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) fishery from 1508 to 2019. They find that catches from the sixteenth century to the 1950s did not exceed 200000 t per annum and could have been sustained today “if fishing effort and mortality had been stabilized in the 1980s”. Had Schijns et al. used a more complete and representative time series (as identified below), they would have found that catches were substantially higher during much of the time period, possibly affecting their conclusions regarding the timing and onset of unsustainable exploitation. In an earlier paper, based on original archival documentation, we have argued that total landings in the Newfoundland fishery averaged 400000 t in the eighteenth century and peaked at 600000 t in 1788. We contend that pre-industrial technology was sufficient to have a significant impact on marine life.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".