MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398142083 · doi:10.53962/kk47-wsmx

PubCast: A commentary on the role of hatcheries and stocking programs in salmon conservation and adapting ourselves to less‐than‐wild futures

2024· other· en· W4398142083 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah L. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchEquals · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStockingFutures contractFisheryBiologyBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Authors: Hannah L. Harrison and Valerie Berseth Hatcheries and stocking programs serve a variety of objectives, including the conservation of salmon populations. Much attention has been given to the importance of genetic integrity and adaptive capacity of salmon stocks, particularly as they interact with hatchery‐origin fish. Literature on hatchery and stocking programs has increasingly focused on genetic indicators of quality and success, with genetically ‘wild’ salmon valued over hatchery‐influenced salmon. However, conservation in the Anthropocene is challenging paradigms of wildness and definitions of conservation success. For salmon populations that exist on the ragged edge of climate change where threats are unlikely to be remediated to the status of ecologies past, definitions of ‘wild’ and role of conservation hatcheries and stocking becomes convoluted. If definitions of ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ salmon depend on salmon archetypes situated in historic ecologies, then what do salmon futures look like? In that context, we argue to expand from primarily genetic criteria for conservation stocking to additional criteria cognizant of hybrid ecosystems and future human‐salmon relationships. We draw on the concept of adaptive epistemologies within the context of conservation‐oriented hatchery and stocking programs to critically reflect on knowledge paradigms and values that underlie salmon conservation stocking efforts and the changing ecosystems in which they are situated. We critique ‘wild’ discourses rooted in western thought and make suggestions toward a reimagining of salmon conservation‐via‐hatchery in the Anthropocene that allows for expansive human‐salmon futures. Critically, we conclude with warnings against using the arguments in this paper as social permission to use hatcheries as a conservation panacea. You can find the published version of this paper at Fish and Fisheries journal:

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.017
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0670.089
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchEqualsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207