MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026188191 · doi:10.1139/f00-154

Population effects of shrimp trawl bycatch on Atlantic croaker

2000· article· en· W2026188191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra L. Diamond, Lindsay G. Cowell, Larry B. Crowder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBycatchFisheryJuvenilePopulationShrimpEstuaryBiologyFishingEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used stage-within-age based matrix models of Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in the Gulf of Mexico and the South and Mid-Atlantic bights to explore the population-level impacts of shrimp trawl bycatch on estuarine-dependent fishes and to investigate tradeoffs between directed adult fisheries and bycatch mortality. The Gulf model reflected a rapidly declining population, while the Atlantic population showed a modest decline. Elasticity analyses indicated that both populations were more sensitive to the summed survival of adults than first-year survival, particularly in the Gulf. Contrary to our expectations, bycatch mortality on late juveniles was not the most important factor affecting either population of Atlantic croaker, and this result was robust to uncertainty in both adult and late juvenile mortality estimates. Both populations were most sensitive to ocean larva mortality, followed by mortality of estuary larvae and adults in the Gulf and of early juveniles and adults in the Atlantic. Nonetheless, bycatch mortality did have a large negative impact on population growth rates, and reducing late juvenile or adult mortality by about 35% in the Gulf or 5% in the Atlantic should reverse population declines. Bycatch reduction devices currently in use can achieve these desired reductions.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
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

Citations60
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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