MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1975112127 · doi:10.1139/f02-078

Characterizing catch variability in a multispecies fishery: implications for fishery management

2002· article· en· W1975112127 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.A.E. van Oostenbrugge, E J Bakker, W.L.T. van Densen, M.A.M. Machiels, P.A.M. van Zwieten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelagic zoneFisheryDominance (genetics)Fisheries managementEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyGeographyFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploiting several fish species simultaneously reduces variability in daily catches. The reduction depends on the number of species, the catch-frequency distributions of individual species, and the level of co-occurrence of species in the catch. We explore theoretically the reduction of variability (coefficient of variation; CV) in the total catch by combining the distributions of daily catches of individual fish species, including zero catches, into a total catch frequency distribution. Theoretical findings are tested with an example from a stationary lift-net fishery for schooling small pelagic species around Ambon Island in the Central Moluccas, Indonesia. This fishery catches over 30 species, all with high daily variability (CV = 2.2–13.4). The reduction of variability in the total catch (CV = 1.7) is a result of the dominance and independent occurrence of the three main species. We conclude that in this fishery the information value of the total catch as an indicator of the catches of the individual species is low.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→