Developing an Environmentally Responsible Irritant for the British Columbia Octopus Dive Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Bleach has been used for decades as an irritant in the British Columbia (BC) commercial octopus dive-fishery. Recently the FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) declared that using noxious substances in any fishery is considered unlawful, under international law. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has asked BC octopus fishers to alter their fishing practises to bring them into accord with the FAO declaration and what will be Canadian Law. This paper considers the relative merits of prohibiting bleach in all fisheries and then discusses the current efforts in Northern BC to resolve this concern – including the results of informal dive tests that used a variety of alternative irritants in fall/99. The recommendations in this paper are based on a common sense trade-off between the cost-effectiveness, the safety-in-use, and the environmental friendliness of various irritant solutions. It is the considered opinion of the authors that, when political considerations are ignored, dry-bleach in solution is the best irritant for the BC octopus fishery at this time – suggestions were also made for further testing of other irritants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".