MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974331359 · doi:10.1017/s0030605305000967

Magnitude and trends of marine fish curio imports to the USA

2005· article· en· W1974331359 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Grey, Anne-Marie Blais, Amanda C. J. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueOryx · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIUCN Red ListFisheryEndangered speciesThreatened speciesFish <Actinopterygii>BycatchGeographyWildlifeWildlife tradeFishingMarine fishNear-threatened speciesBiologyEcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The curio trade in marine fishes has not previously been quantitatively analysed. As a contribution towards understanding the scale and conservation impact of such trade we summarize import and export data from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for 1997–2001. At least 32 fish species were involved in the USA's international trade in curios, of which 24 were included on the 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, with categorizations ranging from Endangered to Data Deficient. The USA apparently imported an annual total of approximately one million fish and 360 tonnes of fish parts, worth more than USD 1.7 million, although total volume declined over the 5 years of data. Fish curios imported to the USA reportedly came primarily from Taiwan and the Philippines, with 95% of curios obtained from wild populations. The three marine fish groups most traded for curios were sharks, seahorses and porcupinefishes. The value per individual fish fluctuated across years, with a considerable increase in the value of dried seahorses from 1997 to 2001. The trade probably adds to conservation concerns for at least some species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOryxSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207