MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101398507 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v27i1.8590

Fishing for the future: How coastal and island fishing communities in Maine and Newfoundland remain in place

2025· article· W7101398507 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingMainlandPresentation (obstetrics)Small islandFisheries managementMainland China

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fisheries have historically been the backbone of small coastal and island communities in Maine and Newfoundland. Innovative methods of responding to changes in fisheries have been integral in allowing both small-scale fisheries and island communities to remain in place. This presentation explores the relationship between fisheries and community development by using community perspectives from seven communities in two regions. The first part of this presentation will discuss six communities; three from Newfoundland (Anchor Point, Change Islands, and Fogo Island) and three from Maine (Chebeague Island, Monhegan Island, and Swan’s Island) and will based upon research from the fall of 2012. The second half of the presentation will focus on Cranberry Isles. The methods that are explored are both internal (delayed season start and island specific licensing) and external (co-operatives and different marketing programs) to the existing management system. There are similarities that can be seen across differences in scale, governing structures, and location with reference to mainland communities and markets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicIsland Studies and Pacific AffairsFrench-language works237,207