MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022225041 · doi:10.1139/f05-131

When fish meet a trawling vessel: examining the behaviour of gadoids using a free-floating buoy and acoustic split-beam tracking

2005· article· en· W2022225041 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nils Olav Handegard, Dag Tjøstheim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsTrawlingTarget strengthBuoyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryResearch vesselOceanographyEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reaction of individual gadoids to a bottom-trawling vessel has been observed in situ in the Barents Sea using a free-floating buoy and acoustic target-tracking methods. More than 20 000 tracks were analysed in terms of velocity changes in vertical, athwarthship, and alongship direction relative to the vessel, the warps, and the trawl, respectively. The fish starts diving about 15 min before vessel passing. This coincides with the time the trawl is running and not with the gradual increase in vessel noise caused by the approaching vessel. The change in horizontal movement is more gradual and is directed away from the vessel in the alongship direction, but towards the vessel in the athwarthship direction. The strongest and sharpest response is related to the trawl warps. A strong herding in front of the warps is seen. Closer to the bottom, an athwarthship herding reaction is seen away from the trawl doors or possibly the lower parts of the warps. There were only minor differences when grouping the tracks according to light level, fish size, and fish density.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations83
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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