MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016639636 · doi:10.1139/f08-186

Spatial and temporal impact of pingers on porpoises

2009· article· en· W2016639636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Carlström, Per Berggren, Nick Tregenza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCrown EstateScottish Natural Heritage
KeywordsPhocoenaPorpoiseHuman echolocationBycatchFisheryHabitatEnvironmental scienceBiologyHarbourEcologyFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bycatches are considered the most serious threat to harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) and other small cetaceans worldwide. Pingers are used to reduce bycatch levels, but may also deter porpoises from critical habitats. We investigated the spatial and temporal responses of porpoises to simulated bottom-set nets equipped with periodically operating Dukane NetMark 1000 pingers. Echolocation rates were monitored by porpoise click train detectors (PODs) placed at and around the nets, and a shore-based observation team recorded surfacing positions and movements. Pinger sound significantly reduced the median echolocation encounter rate by 50%–100% at PODs placed up to 500 m and reduced the sighting rate up to 375 m from the simulated net. The average distance of approach increased by 300 m. When pingers were silent after being active for 24 h 50 min, the return time of porpoises was 6 h, in comparison with 2.5 h after pingers had been silent. During the study period of approximately 50 days, habituation was detectable at two of nine PODs. The results indicate that pingers affect porpoises at greater distances than previously observed. This confirms that pingers are an effective bycatch mitigation measure, but alternative solutions should be applied in ecologically important habitats and migration routes. An example is given from the Baltic region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207