Comparing pristine and depleted ecosystems : the Sørfjord, Norway vs the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Effects of intense fisheries on marine ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstracts are to be cited without prior reference to the author.The Sørfjord, Norway, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, are two sub-arctic ecosystems with similar trophic structure. However, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, severe exploitation of groundfish stocks has lead to important shifts in the trophic structure. In the Sørfjord, the situation is different: fishing pressure is much lighter. Our hypothesis is that overexploitation leads to changes in the trophic structure and severely alters the resilience of ecosystems. Based on the same modelling approach (Ecopath with Ecosim) the food web structure was compared, using different ecosystem indicators. Patterns of food web structure and trophodynamics were contrasted. The keystone species in both ecosystems is cod. In both ecosystems, forage fish are also important. Even after similar environmental changes in both ecosystems, and after a reduction of fishing pressure in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there is no recovery of cod stocks in this ecosystem. In the Sørfjord, after different perturbations (but not from the fishery), the ecosystem seems to return to his equilibrium.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".