Banc-des-Américains MPA : monitoring indicators, measures and state of knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Priority issues were identified to link the conservation objectives (COs) with the choice of pressures. Priority issues also help to clarify the direction of the changes expected to assess the status of the indicators and measures. Conservation priorities, pressures and indicators The 15 conservation priorities, 12 pressures, and 44 indicators were reorganized from the 2018 list and, in some cases, slightly modified to better reflect the databases used. Five indicators were removed from the 2018 list, and three pressures and five indicators were added regarding competitors/predators (grey seal), scientific activities, fishing violations, new pressures and ghost gear. As a result of the review, acidification and dissolved oxygen become two separate indicators from Pr2 to allow for a more appropriate interpretation. Method for assessing the status of measures and indicators Two methods are proposed for assessing the status of the measures and indicators presented: anomaly and fixed threshold. Other approaches may be considered for indicators not presented. Anomaly method: Anomalies (deviation from the standardized mean) are used to highlight the variation of a measure against a reference period. Fixed-threshold method: Thresholds are used instead of anomalies when threshold values with known biological effects from the scientific literature are available. Known thresholds have been used for measures relating to herring, dissolved oxygen and acidification. The data used must be properly processed according to their nature and statistical properties (e.g., data transformations) before the anomaly is calculated. The status assessment can be (1) directional when the change has an a priori favourable or unfavourable direction or (2) bidirectional when there is no anticipated direction to the change. In this case, it is the magnitude of the change that is assessed. Three status categories are used, and each category is assigned a score from 1 to 3. Data may be presented without an its status evaluated due to a lack of information, in which case the “Not assessed” category is used. The status of the indicator is the sum of the anomalies of each of its measures or, when thresholds are used, the sum of the scores associated with each measure. An oceanographic area and a benthic area wider than the MPA boundary were defined in order to calculate measures for eight indicators. Measures and state of knowledge For each of the 27 indicators with a processed database, measures were selected, described and calculated according to a reference period in order to produce the state of knowledge for the available time series. The relevance of the grouping of measures considered for an indicator was reviewed and commented upon. A confidence level was established for each of the 27 indicators, based on the quality and quantity of the data used. The following indicators could not be assessed: BD2–Warm water indicator species, EP2–Atlantic wolffish bycatch, EP6–Cetacean mortality/accidents, Pr8–Intensity of observation and recreational activities, Pr10–Number of entanglements, and Pr18–Number of new pressures. A basic portrait is nevertheless presented for these indicators. The final status (overall rating) of the indicators will be produced in the monitoring reports after a few years have passed since the establishment of the MPA status. In this report, only changes in the status of the indicators over the time series are presented. Priority indicators Priority indicators have been identified for the production of interim reports, which are more succinct than full monitoring reports, every 3 years. These indicators focus on direct pressures and a few key indicators related to CO1 (conserve and protect benthic habitats) and CO3 (promote the recovery of at-risk whales and wolffish).
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".