How wild is the ocean? Assessing the intensity of \nanthropogenic marine activities in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The intensity of marine activities in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of British Columbia, Canada, was quantified. \n2. Humans use the ocean for a multitude of purposes, many of which have a direct impact on marine life and habitat. Yet such uses are seldom assessed in an integrated fashion. \n3. Using a GIS approach, spatial information for 39 marine activities was mapped, including commercial and recreational fishing areas, transportation and infrastructure uses, and terrestrial activities along the coast of British Columbia. \n4. A relative scale was used to rank both the impact of marine activities and the extent of stressors beyond the location of occurrence. Limited information on the latter led to the application of three ranges of buffer distances to the data (0–1 km, 0–5 km, and 0–25 km). \n5. The most conservative estimate (41 km buffers) indicates at least 83% of the continental shelf and slope of British Columbia is currently being used by humans. The largest buffer assumption shows 98% of the continental shelf and slope being affected by stressors from anthropogenic \nactivities. \n6. This analysis provides a baseline for assessing future changes in the state of British Columbia’s marine environment, and could assist in identifying areas of conservation potential.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".