MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2081877423 · doi:10.1139/f03-044

The influence of prawn trawling on sessile benthic assemblages in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia

2003· article· en· W2081877423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason E. Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrawlingBenthosFisheryBottom trawlingBenthic zoneEcologyBiologyGeographyFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most experimental studies on the effects of trawling on the benthos use remote sampling techniques and are conducted in recently trawled areas. Thus it is difficult to determine the effects of trawling on previously unfished areas, and the fates of individual animals cannot be followed. In this study, I follow the fates of individuals of several sessile taxa when exposed to experimental trawling in areas that have not been trawled for some 15–20 years. Although there was a significant trawling by location effect for all multivariate analyses and most individual taxa, I found that trawling had an overall negative effect on the benthos. Epifauna at trawled sites decreased in abundance by 28% within 2 weeks of trawling and by another 8% in the following 2–3 months (compared with control sites). Seasonal seagrasses were also less likely to colonise trawled sites than untrawled sites. The persistence of most taxa declined significantly in trawled areas compared with untrawled areas. In contrast to this, the recruitment rates of several taxa into visible size classes increased after trawling, presumably because of a reduction in competition.

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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→