MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978128722 · doi:10.1577/m06-124.1

Comparison of Harvest Control Policies for Rebuilding Overfished Populations within a Fixed Rebuilding Time Frame

2007· article· en· W1978128722 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth A. Babcock, Murdoch K. McAllister, Ellen K. Pikitch

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesPew Charitable Trusts
KeywordsFisheryFishingPopulationProductivitySwordfishRange (aeronautics)GeographyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>EngineeringEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract U.S. law requires that overfished fish populations be rebuilt within 10 years when biologically possible, and otherwise within the time it would take to rebuild in the absence of fishing plus one mean generation time (MGT). Most overfished populations can recover in less than 10 years; the exceptions are populations with very low productivity and some that are severely depleted. A range of harvest control policies, including constant fishing mortalities and variable harvest rate control rules, were compared in terms of their ability to rebuild overfished populations of five species within the required times. The North Atlantic swordfish Xiphias gladius and Gulf of Mexico red snapper Lutjanus campechanus populations were able to rebuild in 10 years, but the white marlin Tetrapturus albidus, sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus, and darkblotched rockfish Sebastes crameri populations were not. The harvest policy that resulted in populations being rebuilt most rapidly was either a control rule that reduced fishing mortality with decreasing biomass or a constant harvest rate designed to meet the current rebuilding time requirement. The control rules we analyzed restricted catches at the beginning of the rebuilding period but allowed catches to increase rapidly as the population was rebuilt. Thus, there was a trade-off between relatively high catches early in the rebuilding period and high catches later in the rebuilding period when the population had been rebuilt and could sustain high catches. Whether the population was rebuilt more rapidly under a fixed rebuilding-time requirement or a control rule depended on the productivity of the population.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207