How precautionary is the policy governing the Ross Sea Antarctic toothfish (<i>Dissostichus mawsoni</i>) fishery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reviews the adequacy of data and models currently being used to estimate the present and future population sizes of the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoniNorman) in the Ross Sea regional ecosystem. The current tagging programme is unlikely to provide an accurate picture of total population size, and estimates of both the pre-exploitation spawning stock biomass and the ratio of current to pre-exploitation biomass are unreliable. Many parameters necessary for estimating future population growth or decline have not been measured, and the current objective of a 50% reduction in biomass relative to unexploited biomass may easily fail to prevent a much larger reduction from taking place. The need to guess values of important parameters makes it impossible to set bounds on the potential errors of population forecasts. Current scientific knowledge is far from what is needed to predict the likely effects of food-web responses to harvesting of toothfish in the Ross Sea, or to predict the feedback effects of those food-web changes on toothfish populations.
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 | 0.036 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".