Managing Small Fish at Large Scales: The Emergence of Regional Policies for River Herring in the Eastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anadromous Alewives Alosa pseudoharengus and Blueback Herring A. aestivalis, collectively known as “river herring,” provide ecosystem services to coastal communities in the Eastern United States. Despite traditions of community-based stewardship, many populations exhibit long-term declines. Their name notwithstanding, river herring spend most of their lives at sea and stray among natal rivers. Therefore, absence of management above individual rivers can compromise population viability, local conservation investments, and ecosystem services. Large-scale management in the USA was achieved for the first time during 2007–2015 by amending three Fishery Management Plans and creating a broader River Herring Conservation Plan following an Endangered Species Act petition. Concurrently, an international restoration plan for river herring in the St. Croix River on the USA–Canada border was adopted. A survey of stakeholder organizations in New England during this period revealed widespread concern for stressors managed at different scales, but that most action was directed locally. Stakeholder collaboration networks were clustered within states and around loose regional hubs, matching the scales of stakeholder concerns and actions. Unfortunately, river herring face growing threats linked to climate change, effects of which will be felt at local and regional scales, while effective mitigation will require actions at national and global scales.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".