Why do fishers fish where they fish? Using the ideal free distribution to understand the behaviour of artisanal reef fishers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used the theory of the ideal free distribution (IFD) as a framework to understand the mechanisms underlying fishing site selection by Anguillian artisanal fishers exploiting shallow-water coral reefs. Contrary to the predictions of IFD, fishers did not distribute themselves so that average reward was equal among fishers using different fishing methods or among fishers using the same method. In addition, fishing pressure did not increase with resource availability. Key assumptions of the IFD were not met. The distribution of Anguillian fishers was not "ideal" because lack of knowledge prevented fishers from choosing fishing grounds with the greatest rewards. Not all fishers sought to maximise profit. In addition, all fishers were not "free" to distribute themselves among reefs owing to variation in social, economic, and physical characteristics of fishers that constrained fisher movements and ability to extract resources. This study shows that as a null model the IFD is useful to frame studies designed to gain detailed insights into the complexity and dynamics of a small-scale fishery. Alongside ecological data, this framework may inform efficient and effective development of reef and fishery management practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".