Drop chain footgear: A new approach to environmentally friendly inshore Northern shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effectiveness of a low seabed impact footgear versus a traditional rockhopper footgear on identical inshore Vónin shrimp trawls. The experimental trawl used in this study was designed to be low seabed impact through the reduction of contact area of the footgear by replacing traditional heavy rockhopper footgear with only a few drop chains lightly in contact with the seabed (i.e., drop chain footgear). Results from flume tank testing demonstrated that the trawls were similar in net geometry but the experimental trawl had a 62% reduction in contact area with the seabed compared to the control trawl. Comparative atsea fishing trials revealed that the drop chain footgear trawl has the potential to catch a similar amount of shrimp with appropriate drop chain rigging and modifications. Major by catch species (i.e., turbot, American plaice, and redfish) in terms of percentage of total catch in weight, quantities (i.e., counts), and size (i.e., length distribution) were not significantly different between trawl types. The experimental trawl had significantly lower resistance (i.e., warp tension) than the control trawl, however this did not translate into a detectable reduction in fuel consumption. Although the results are preliminary, this study demonstrated the potential and possibility of using drop chain footgear trawl for the Newfoundland and Labrador (inshore)Northern shrimp fishery. We recommended further studies that would lead to improve/optimize and eventually commercialize the drop chain footgear trawl as a low impact shrimp trawl choice in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".