MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391227354 · doi:10.1111/csp2.13076

Monitoring data for a new large offshore marine protected area reveals infeasible management objectives

2024· article· en· W4391227354 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineMarine protected areaMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementOceanographyBusinessGeologyEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting and measuring changes resulting from marine protected areas (MPAs) has posed a challenge for practitioners, partly because ecosystems are complex and can change in unanticipated ways, but also due to MPA characteristics such as design factors, conservation objectives (COs), and monitoring programs, that can leave little chance of meeting stated goals. We consider these design factors for the Laurentian Channel MPA, a large offshore Canadian protected area established to protect against fishing impacts. Specifically, in this study we evaluated (1) whether it is realistic to expect improvements in the MPA for four previously established taxa‐specific COs, and (2) whether existing scientific surveys are capable of detecting changes in these CO taxa even if they occurred. Three CO species were sampled in scientific multispecies research vessel trawl surveys (Black Dogfish, Smooth Skate, and Northern Wolffish) and a fourth CO, sea pen taxa, were enumerated using seafloor imagery. Simulations indicate that trawl surveys have very little chance of detecting change in the abundance of the three fish species examined, while seafloor imagery data had higher statistical power for sea pen taxa. Moreover, we show that expecting change related to the removal of fishing is unrealistic due to the fact that the MPA was established in an area of minimal fishing pressure. While positive change is unlikely to be induced by the MPA, or be detected if they occurred, this MPA could provide conservation benefits if COs and monitoring approaches were realigned to match the unique features of this area that represents largely unimpacted sensitive benthic habitats.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.254 · 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