Information needs for considering cumulative effects in fish and fish habitat decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2019 revisions to Canada’s Fisheries Act (FA) introduced, for the first time, the legislative mandate within the Act to consider cumulative effects (CE) in decision-making. Under paragraph 34.1 (1)(d) the Minister shall consider “the cumulative effects of the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity referred to in a recommendation or an exercise of power, in combination with other works, undertakings or activities that have been or are being carried on, on fish and fish habitat”. Within Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (FFHPP) is the lead authority responsible for undertaking these considerations when reviewing proposed works, undertakings or activities (WUA). FFHPP requested Science Advice on the process for considering CE in decision-making with specific reference to the risk assessment process undertaken in project review. The following are the objectives of this report: (1) Evaluate the relevant elements within the current risk approach to determine if sufficient information is gathered to inform the consideration of CE. This includes (a) identifying recommendations for additional elements to be included in the current risk approach to inform the consideration of CE, and (b) identifying the fundamental information needed on species and habitats in the region of a project when considering CE. (2) Provide advice on key characteristics required to determine how habitat sensitivity can be determined in the context of CE. Thus, we focused on outlining the information needed to consider CE within decision-making. First, we identified the information needed for CE considerations with respect to the spatio-temporal context of a WUA. This section outlines the information needed from a scientific approach, independently from that currently used by the FFHPP. It includes the information needed about the WUA, and the species and habitats within the region of the WUA. Second, using this list we explored the current risk approach used by the FFHPP and whether there are elements missing from it that would assist in ensuring the full suite of information is included for CE considerations. Finally, we identified important elements that require follow-up research and examination through subsequent Canadian Science Advice Secretariat processes.
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 | 0.257 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".