Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Is More Difficult Than We Thought by Graeme WynnA nother study of the demise of the Newfoundland cod fishery?Surely this topic, like the codfish itself, has been done almost to death.Since 1992, when Canada's minister of fisheries acknowledged the dramatic collapse of northern cod stocks in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador and imposed a strict moratorium (subsequently extended indefinitely, although subject to limited regional exemptions) on all fishing for cod, thousands of trees have been sacrificed and much ink has been spread to produce countless pages of discussion of this calamitous event, described by one commentator as "an ecological crime comparable to the Soviet Union's draining of the Aral Sea." 1 Writ large this story offers a classic tale of human rapaciousness and the plundering of nature's bounty. 2 Waters that sixteenth-century sailors described as teeming with cod quickly became the focus of an international fishery that drew men and ships on annual voyages from the eastern shores of the Atlantic to the Grand Banks (and other fishing grounds) to provide food for much of Europe.With time, men from England, Ireland, and France began to overwinter on the island of Newfoundland, a colonial territory that British politicians thought of, metaphorically, as "a great ship moored near the banks in the fishing season for the convenience of English fishermen."3 Gradually, women joined the fishermen, and settlement of the "new founde lande" advanced.Late in the eighteenth century, some 30,000 English-speakers engaged in the Newfoundland fishery.Approximately forty percent of these people voyaged to the fishing grounds each
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.266 | 0.137 |
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".