Protecting window‐size female American lobster, <i>Homarus americanus</i> , to increase egg production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new conservation measure aimed at protecting the larger broodstock (females with a carapace length between 115 and 129 mm, i.e., window‐size females, WSF) to enhance egg production was implemented in 2003 for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. To assess the effectiveness of this new measure, a tagging project was carried out between 2004 and 2007 in the Hillsborough Bay area with the collaboration of local harvesters. Based on a single mark‐recapture Petersen model, the estimated catch rates of WSF not carrying eggs under the abdomen in the study area varied between 40% and 53%. The catch‐per‐unit‐effort (animals per 100 traps) of both berried (egg‐bearing) and non‐berried WSF increased from 0.2 to 0.8 and 1.0 to 1.6, respectively, between 2004 and 2007. Based on the estimated number of non‐berried WSF in the population observed during the spring fishery between 2004 and 2007, the potential total egg production for WSF was estimated at 1.1 billion in the study area. From this total, 515 million eggs would have been produced by WSF directly protected by the conservation measure, i.e., females that would have been harvested if not for the new regulation. Finally, the contribution of berried WSF to the annual egg production in the study area increased from 4% to 23% between 2003 and 2007 based on the at‐sea sampling programme and the fecundity curve. WSF that represented 10% of the total berried female population in 2007 contributed 23% of the annual egg production. Hence, the protection of WSF seems to be an effective conservation measure to increase egg production based on the catch‐per‐unit‐effort and egg production.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".