Individual Transferable Quotas in Clams and Fish: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Individual transferable quotas (ITQs) are widely advocated as ways to rationalize over-capitalized and over-exploited fisheries. They are best known through experiences in New Zealand, Australia, and \nIceland beginning in the 1980s. Because of case studies being done in the 1990s, a comparative analysis of newer ITQ-based management regimes in the U.S. and Canada is now possible. Research on ITQs in the U.S. federal surf clam and ocean quahog fishery and the Canadian groundfish \nfishery for mobile gear under 65' in length in the Scotia-Fundy region suggests a series of lessons about the introduction, acceptance, and consequences of ITQs for fisheries management. Research is also \nunderway on the Western Newfoundland mobile gear ITQ fishery and on the Eastern Newfoundland crab fishery, among the many that have not been converted to ITQs. This paper reports solely on the comparison between the US clam fishery and the Scotia-Fundy groundfish fishery."
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".