MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096904875

opinions of Marine Stewardship Council certification

2009· article· en· W7096904875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationStewardship (theology)FishingSustainabilityIncentivePopulationOrder (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As worldwide population growth continues to rise, so does demand for seafood by consumers. With this trend interest in sustainably certified seafood is also increasing. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard for sustainable and well-managed fisheries is considered the gold standard of fisheries certification worldwide. Because of fears that they may lose markets if they do not become certified, many fisheries in the U.S. and Canada, including the Maine lobster fishery, have recently begun to pursue MSC certification. Although certification provides a market-based incentive to improve sustainable fishing practices, it is a costly and time-consuming process, and often imposes additional requirements on fishing industries in order to meet certification standards. In order to evaluate whether the costs of certification of the Maine lobster fishery are worth the presumed benefits, I interviewed lobster industry members to learn about their knowledge and attitude towards MSC certification; administered an online consumer survey to understand consumers ’ attitudes and purchasing preferences related to ecolabeled lobster; and consulted with fisheries experts and representatives from other MSC-certified fisheries to compile lessons learned.

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)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designQualitative
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 topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact→French-language works237,207→