Data from: Reviewing 20 years of progress towards sustainable fisheries under Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wild Salmon Policy was adopted in 2005, to safeguard salmon biodiversity and provide sustainable benefits to Canadians. Over the last 20 years the WSP has made important contributions to conservation, but many gaps remain. We find that many Conservation Units (83%; 324/390) have not had status assessments, a key element of the WSP. Changes in fisheries targeting Skeena and Nass sockeye, and Interior Fraser River coho salmon have promoted recovery of some CUs, but failure to robustly implement WSP strategies for north and central coast chum and coho salmon populations creates conservation risks with potentially devastating consequences for fisheries and ecosystems. Most Chinook salmon CUs in British Columbia are unassessed (81%; 65/80), and two out of the 15 assessed CUs are considered healthy (green status zone). Despite these risks, changes in the management of mixed-stock Chinook fisheries have been inadequate for reversing declines. A renewed commitment to WSP implementation, and an increased focus on transitioning harvest out of high-risk mixed-stock fisheries can support improved outcomes for Pacific salmon in Canada.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.010 |
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".