PACIFIC WHITING HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pacific whiting fishery management process is unlike that for other federally-managed West Coast groundfish for 2007 fisheries, for which catch specifications and management measures were adopted by the Council at the June 2006 Council meeting for the two-year period 2007-2008. The Council deferred a decision on setting harvest specifications and management measures for the 2007 Pacific whiting fisheries pending the development and review of a new stock assessment to occur during February 2007. A new Pacific whiting assessment was prepared this winter (Agenda Item E.3.a, Attachments 1 and 2) and reviewed by a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel during February 2007 (Agenda Item E.3.a, Attachment 3). The Council should consider the advice of the STAR Panel, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and other advisors before adopting the assessment for use in management decision-making. The assessment, once approved, will be used to set 2007 Pacific whiting harvest specifications and management measures. In 2004-2006, this transboundary stock was managed jointly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, in the spirit of a new process described in a treaty that has been signed by both countries and recently ratified by the U.S. Senate with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".