Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Coho Technical Committee was given the task of analyzing the effects of management unit (MU) size on harvest, escapement, and fishery management processes for coho salmon under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). Puget Sound is currently comprised of five separate wild coho MUs and Interior Fraser is comprised of five separate Canadian Wild Salmon Policy conservation units (CU), but is managed as a single MU. To analyze the effects of lumping or splitting these component units, we examined three hypothetical management regimes for both Puget Sound and Interior Fraser River: 1) Manage coho from each region as a single MU in all fisheries (i.e., all Puget Sound MUs would be lumped into a single MU), 2) Manage each as five separate MUs in all fisheries (i.e., each Interior Fraser CU would be managed as a seperate MU), or 3) Manage each as one aggregate MU to set PSC ceilings, but as five separate MUs in domestic fishery management processes. We simulated these regimes under a range of abundance scenarios for each population within the MU, and projected the total harvestable numbers by using the Comprehensive Coho abundance breakpoints
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.601 | 0.248 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".