MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067235323

Lake Winnipeg Commercial Fishery Quota Entitlement System

2009· article· en· W7067235323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)SubsidyUnit (ring theory)Capital (architecture)Flexibility (engineering)Distribution (mathematics)Capital investmentOpportunity cost
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Lake Winnipeg is one of Manitoba's major commercial fisheries, averaging harvest of 5.8 million kg annually of walleye, sauger, whitefish, northern pike, and perch. Because of economic, biological, and market constraints, increases in lake quota or subsidization programs for fishermen are not the solution. Fisheries Branch has worked with Lake Winnipeg commercial fishermen to develop a system of quota entitlement which maintains overall lake quota but allows flexibility in distribution of individual quotas of fishermen. Introduced in 1985, the quota entitlement system on Lake Winnipeg was intended to result in a decrease in total number of fishermen. It was anticipated that gross incomes would increase, utilization of capital equipment would improve, unit harvesting costs would decline, and consequently fishermen's incomes would increase, creating an opportunity for increase in economic sustainability. The lake quota, however, would still be maintained to prevent overharvest. This paper will present results of an evaluation conducted in 1991 to determine whether the program was meeting these objectives."

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.142
Teacher spread0.138 · 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
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207