MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095937712

The Transboundary Management Guidance Committee

2010· article· en· W7095937712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundfishFishingMandateCommissionFisheries managementStock (firearms)Fish stockContext (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

for the transboundary resources of cod, haddock and yellowtail on Georges Bank. Some historical background provides context for these recent developments. Background Since 1977, with the declaration of exclusive economic zones by coastal states, only the USA and Canada have conducted fisheries for groundfish on Georges Bank. Immediately prior to this, the fisheries on Georges Bank fell under the mandate of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The Commission coordinated stock evaluations and was also involved with management. Distant water fleets from various nations expanded their fishing intensity on Georges Bank during the 1960s. The Commission was concerned with moderating this fishing effort and introduced catch quotas and area/season closures in the early 1970s. After 1977, the USA and Canada used national institutions for stock evaluation. The analyses were supported by exchanges of respective fishery and scientific information as well as complementary participation in the review processes. The USA developed a Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan and turned largely to input controls, i.e. area/season closures, mesh size, trip limits, etc., for regulation, with all catch quotas being eliminated by the early 1980s. In

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.047

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207