MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998209943 · doi:10.1139/f03-018

Catchability and the spatial distribution of fishing vessels

2003· article· en· W1998209943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Are Salthaug, Sondre Aanes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsGadusHaddockFisheryFishingCatch per unit effortAtlantic codGadidaeFish stockAbundance (ecology)Spatial distributionCommercial fishingStock (firearms)ArcticEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>GeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central problem when using commercial catch per unit effort (CPUE) as an index of fish stock abundance is that fishing vessels search for concentrations of fish. For a given stock abundance, CPUE may become high if the vessels succeed in finding patches of fish and low if the vessels distribute their catching operations more randomly. In this work, the relationship between catchability and two measures of the degree of spatial concentration of a trawl fleet (the fleet's spatial extent and the fleet's degree of spatial patchiness) is investigated for four different fish stocks. The catchability of northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua) is strongly related to the fleet's degree of spatial concentration, but the relationship is weaker for northeast Arctic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), and no relationships appear for two saithe (Pollachius virens) stocks. Our findings suggest that adjusting CPUE with a measure of the fleet's average degree of concentration relates CPUE more strongly with abundance for migratory stocks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations74
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207