MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047957019 · doi:10.1577/m06-076.1

Effects of Angling on Chinook Salmon for the Nicola River, British Columbia, 1996–2002

2007· article· en· W2047957019 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Cowen, Nicole Trouton, R. E. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windOncorhynchusFisheryFishingCatch and releaseRecreational fishingFish <Actinopterygii>Fisheries managementMortality rateGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To sustain viable fish populations, protect stocks of wild salmon Oncorhynchus spp., and successfully manage the Pacific salmon fishery, all sources of fishing mortality need to be understood. The fishery targeting Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha is an important component of the commercial, recreational, and First Nations fisheries in British Columbia. A mark–recovery study was used to investigate the effect of angling on both the immediate hooking mortality and subsequent spawning success of Chinook salmon in the Nicola River, British Columbia, from 1996 to 2002. The immediate hooking mortality rate was lower than mortality rates reported for marine and other freshwater fisheries. Higher hooking mortality rates were found for fish hooked in critical locations, which were associated with heavy bleeding. However, increased bleeding did not translate into reduced spawning success for those fish that survived. Conclusions regarding hook size and its association with hooking mortality rate and spawning success remain unclear. Using optimal techniques and under the right conditions, catch-and-release angling can be an effective conservation and management tool.

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)0.002
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207