From Fish Movement to Knowledge Movement: Understanding and Improving Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, telemetry science has generated new knowledge with the potential to inform fisheries management in the Laurentian Great Lakes of North America.Yet, new information and scientific evidence must be timely, understood, and viewed as credible and relevant by fisheries managers and policy makers for it to be ultimately used in decision making and integrated into policies.In this thesis, I explore the Great Lakes fisheries network by conducting 50 interviews, with questions based on a knowledge mobilization framework, with managers, researchers and assessment biologists involved in Great Lakes fisheries to identify facilitators and barriers to knowledge transfer and adoption of telemetry science, their awareness to the strengths and limitations of telemetry data as well as their opinion on the role telemetry plays regarding fisheries management.Overall, there is a general awareness of the various strengths and limitations of biotelemetry research and technology in the Great Lakes.Mixed opinions emerged regarding the peer-review process, data sharing and integration of biotelemetry findings into management.There was slight uncertainty regarding the use of biotelemetry to reliably study ecosystems, its costeffectiveness and biotelemetry's future role in standard assessments for the management of the Great Lakes fisheries.Overall, the largest perceived barrier of integration of new knowledge into management was characteristics of actors (e.g., understanding of science, change management issues, generational gap), followed by environmental and contextual (economical, government and institutional), knowledge transfer and characteristics of knowledge (applicability).I will discuss advice and recommendations for telemetry scientists and researchers to help them advance the understanding and incorporation of telemetry science into future decision making processes.I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Dr. Nathan Young, for his guidance into the realm of social science and his words of advice along the way.I thank them both tremendously for their understanding, compassion and patience while I was completing this degree.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".