MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821274512 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2012-0517

Anticipating adaptation: a mechanistic approach for linking policy and stock status to recreational angler behavior

2013· article· en· W1821274512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua K. Abbott, Eli P. Fenichel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingRecreationFish stockFisheryStock (firearms)Context (archaeology)Fisheries managementCatch per unit effortEconometricsEconomicsGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use techniques from economic recreation demand modeling to develop a mechanistic model of individual recreational fishing behavior and estimate it using license-frame survey data. By consistently integrating individuals’ seasonal decisions of where, whether, and how much to fish, the model generates predictions of aggregate indicators such as angler-days and fishing mortality as phenomena arising from individual behavior. We use the model to simulate alternative future scenarios by altering policy variables or measures of fishing quality, such as catch rates. The mechanistic nature of the model incorporates anglers’ adaptive behavior to these stimuli, generating scenarios that are likely more robust to shifts in the decision context than many commonly used phenomenological models. We utilize the model to examine the sensitivity of total catch and catch per unit effort (CPUE) to changes in fish stocks, revealing substantial nonlinearities in this relationship. We also simulate total fishing trips, participation, CPUE, and total catch for a seasonal fishing permit versus a per-trip fee, finding dramatic differences across the two policies that call into question the wisdom of permit fees as management tools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207