MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906647224 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.25243939

The Gulf of St. Lawrence Marine Ecosystem: An Overview of its Structure and Dynamics, Human Pressures, and Governance Approaches

2008· other· en· W6906647224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstuaryEcosystemAction planCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Upstream (networking)RecreationMarine ecosystemSustainability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No abstracts are to be cited without prior reference to the author.The Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence (EGSL) represents one of the largest and most productive estuarine/marine ecosystems in Canada and in the world. However, the EGSL ecosystem is affected by a wide variety of human activities that pose significant threats to its integrity and the sustainable use of its resources. These include fisheries, navigation, mariculture activities, coastal development, recreational use (including marine mammal observation), climate change, and several land–based activities that occur along the EGSL shores and in coastal and upstream rivers and tributaries, including industrial and municipal activities, agriculture, and river damming (for water level control and hydropower). In 2005, the Government of Canada initiated the Oceans Action Plan (OAP) in order to implement an ecosystem-based management approach for five Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs), including the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. This presentation provides an overview of the EGSL ecosystem structure and functioning, as well as its human pressures, through a summary of the scientific tools that were developed within this initiative. As well, a brief description of governance approaches currently being developed in the area to implement these tools is also provided.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)French-language works237,207