Monitoring temporal and spatial trends of illegal and legal fishing in marine conservation areas across Canada's three oceans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Expansion of marine conservation areas (CA) necessitates resource‐efficient and achievable strategies for monitoring and evaluation of ongoing fishing activity at national levels. To demonstrate and explore such a strategy, we conducted the first extensive analysis of fishing activity within Canada's static, geographically defined marine CAs with fishing regulations ( n = 264 areas). We used 8 years of Automatic Identification System data to estimate fishing effort across three oceans and conducted temporal and spatial comparisons specific to each CA's regulations and enactment date. We addressed questions on CA effectiveness, fishing displacement, fishing the line behavior, and relationships between fishing activity and spatial CA attributes. We estimated 22,000 h of fishing activity within CAs after enactments, 22% of which was identified as illegal. CA effectiveness appeared to be lowest for Atlantic CAs based on illegal fishing effort density within CAs. Fishing displacement and fishing the line was generally not apparent as buffer areas around CAs tended to already have higher fishing effort prior to enactments. CA effectiveness and responses to CAs varied considerably, as was visualized using timeseries plots and maps developed for each CA. Our evaluation of a nation's full suite of CAs provides managers with a foundation and approach for continued monitoring and reporting.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it