Estimating reef fish discard mortality using surface and bottom tagging: effects of hook injury and barotrauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimated survival rates of discarded black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in various release conditions using tag–recapture data. Fish were captured with traps and hook and line from waters 29–34 m deep off coastal North Carolina, USA, marked with internal anchor tags, and observed for release condition. Fish tagged on the bottom using SCUBA served as a control group. Relative return rates for trap-caught fish released at the surface versus bottom provided an estimated survival rate of 0.87 (95% credible interval 0.67–1.18) for surface-released fish. Adjusted for results from the underwater tagging experiment, fish with evidence of external barotrauma had a median survival rate of 0.91 (0.69–1.26) compared with 0.36 (0.17–0.67) for fish with hook trauma and 0.16 (0.08–0.30) for floating or presumably dead fish. Applying these condition-specific estimates of survival to non-tagging fishery data, we estimated a discard survival rate of 0.81 (0.62–1.11) for 11 hook and line data sets from waters 20–35 m deep and 0.86 (0.67–1.17) for 10 trap data sets from waters 11–29 m deep. The tag-return approach using a control group with no fishery-associated trauma represents a method to accurately estimate absolute discard survival of physoclistous reef species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".