MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361192370 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2731208/v1

Poverty line income and fisheries subsidies in developing country fishing communities

2023· preprint· en· W4361192370 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise Teh, Lydia C. L. Teh, U. Rashid Sumaila, Alfredo Giron Nava

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsSubsidyPovertyFishingSustainabilityFisheryEconomicsExtreme povertyBusinessSustainable developmentNatural resource economicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> Eradicating poverty and harmful fisheries subsidies are two pressing challenges frequently addressed in international agendas for sustainable development. Here we investigate a potential solution for addressing both challenges simultaneously by asking the hypothetical question: to what extent can harmful fisheries subsidies provided by a country finance the cost of lifting fishers out of poverty? Focusing on 30 coastal least developed countries, we find that fishers in 87% of these countries do not earn sufficient income to satisfy the extreme poverty line income of USD 1.90/person/day, and that it costs an estimated USD 2.2 to 2.6 billion to lift these fishers to different levels of poverty line incomes. Our analysis further suggests that at the country level, redirected harmful fisheries subsidies can cover the entire cost of covering the poverty income gap for between 37 to 43% of assessed countries. Our results provide quantitative evidence that can be used to support simultaneous progress towards achieving several Sustainable Development Goals, including those dealing with poverty reduction, food insecurity, and ocean sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.015
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207