MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874408 · doi:10.1002/9781119511847.ch18

Fisheries and Marine Protected Areas

2023· other· en· W4380874408 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Charles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarine protected areaFisheryFisheries managementJurisdictionFish stockMarine reserveEnvironmental resource managementGeographyFisheries lawExclusive economic zoneProtected areaGovernment (linguistics)Marine spatial planningBusinessEnvironmental planningFish <Actinopterygii>FishingPolitical scienceEcologyEnvironmental scienceHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fishery management measure is spatial if it is geographically defined, implemented specifically in a certain delimited sub-area of the jurisdiction or overall management area. A closed area, such as one designed to protect juvenile fish of a specific stock, is an example of a protected area with its emphasis on meeting fisheries management objectives. While closed areas are very common in fisheries, this chapter focuses on interactions of fisheries with spatial management approaches that usually go beyond fisheries to emphasise broad conservation goals, e.g. biodiversity conservation. It turns from some ‘informal’ or ‘nongovernmental’ areas to focus on official government-initiated and operated protected areas – not because these are more important, but because they are the subject of intense discussion and implementation efforts. Official government-sanctioned protected areas in the ocean are typically called Marine Protected Areas, with the words capitalised.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.008

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207