MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4242028201 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12885308.v1

Beyond static spatial management: Scientific and legal considerations for dynamic management in the high seas

2020· preprint· en· W4242028201 on OpenAlexaff
Guillermo Ortuño Crespo, Joanna Mossop, Daniel C. Dunn, Kristina M. Gjerde, Elliott L. Hazen, Gabriel Reygondeau, Robin Warner, Derek P. Tittensor, Patrick N. Halpin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Department of Commerce
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementMarine protected areaJurisdictionInternational watersTreatyClimate changeSustainabilityBycatchBiodiversityTemporal scalesPopulationEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningFishingFisheryEcologyPolitical scienceLawHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural and human stressors in the high seas act across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. These include direct interaction such as fisheries bycatch or indirect interaction like warming oceans and plastic ingestion. Area-based management tools (ABMTs), such as marine protected areas and time-area closures, are a widely accepted and a broadly successful form of management used to mitigate localized human impacts on marine species and ecosystems. Protection provides an opportunity for population recovery, which can then propagate outside of the closure. As the United Nations negotiates a new treaty on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, efforts to design and implement high seas ABMTs at appropriate scales are critical to ensure that these spatial protection measures are most effective and climate-ready in the face of changing oceans. Here we identify the four most important temporal scales – contemporary, intra-annual, multi-annual and multidecadal – for aligning high seas ABMTs to relevant ecological, oceanographic and atmospheric processes. From this, we explore how managers and decision-makers can integrate this knowledge when implementing a new treaty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal and Marine Management→French-language works237,207→