Bibliographic record
Abstract
In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), FAO prepared the first draft of the technical guidelines in relation to Fishing Operations, which were submitted to the Technical Consultation on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, Rome, 26 September to 5 October 1994. The draft was prepared taking into account the Declaration of Cancún, Agenda 21 of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and the Report of the Expert Consultation on Responsible Fishing Operations, Sidney, British Colombia, Canada, 6 -11 June 1994. Thereafter, the draft was revised taking into account, the negotiations at the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the elaboration of the Code as well as developments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with regard to the Protocol to the Torremolinos International Convention on Fishing Vessel Safety and the new International Convention on Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995. Technical Guidelines are given in support of the implementation of the Code in relation to fishing operations. These are addressed to States, international organizations, fisheries management bodies, owners, managers and charterers of fishing vessels as well as fishers and their organizations. Guidance is also given with respect to the general public. (PDF contains 93 pages)
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.266 | 0.207 |
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".