Chapter 20. Places of Refuge: Considerations for Determining a Canadian Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines issues to be considered in the development of a Canadian national policy on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance and evaluates the operational, legal and regulatory viability of such a policy in the Canadian context. Canada has had significant experience with ships in distress seeking refuge in its ports or waters. From the historical perspective, the right of ships to seek refuge when in distress, either in the waters of its own flag state or in the waters of any other state, has been universally accepted as necessary and acknowledged as such in various international instruments. Canada's integrated oceans management strategy should serve as context for the risk assessment process for a place of refuge policy. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Guidelines represent international consensus on the issue of decision-making by the master, salvor and coastal authorities on places of refuge. Keywords: Canadian national policy; International Law; International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines; places of refuge
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".