MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133269031

Science response: stock status update of American lobster in LFAs 27-32

2022· other· en· W7133269031 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pêches et Océans Canada

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingStock (firearms)American lobsterStock assessmentFish stockIndigenous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific basis for assessing the status of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 27–33 was examined at a framework meeting in January 2018, followed by an assessment of the status of the Lobster resources in LFAs 27–32 in February 2019, and updates in January 2020 and 2021. This update applies a suite of indicators from the 2018 framework to the stock status up to the end of the 2021 fishing season, wherever possible. Primary stock-status indicators for Lobster in LFAs 27–32 meet the intent of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) precautionary approach and allow for the evaluation of stock status. This Science Response Report results from the Regional Science Response Process of February 3, 2022 on the Stock Status Update of American Lobster in LFAs 27–32. This update contains information to the end of the commercial fishing seasons in 2021. Outside of commercial fishing seasons, treaty-based fisheries were prosecuted by Indigenous fishers in some LFAs. These landings are not included in annual landings reported herein. Any removals from treaty-based fisheries would not be accounted for in the stock status indicators presented herein.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.015

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada→French-language works237,207→