MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087880519 · doi:10.1139/f05-121

A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (<i>Dermochelys coriacea</i>)

2005· article· en· W2087880519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac C. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries Service
KeywordsBycatchFisheryFishingGeographyOceanographyPopulationCommercial fishingPacific oceanEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyDemographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are critically endangered in the eastern and western Pacific Ocean. Here, I estimate the magnitude of two likely causes of their decline: (i) bycatch by longline fishing vessels and (ii) coastal sources of mortality. I calculate point estimates of longline bycatch based on turtle catch rates from the US Hawaii-based fleet and effort data for the international Pacific longline fleet. I estimate the intrinsic growth rate of the population and the magnitude of coastal mortality by fitting a simple logistic model. In the western and central Pacific, coastal sources lead to a 13% annual mortality rate, compared with a point estimate of 12% from longlining. In the eastern Pacific, coastal sources account for a 28% annual mortality rate, compared with a point estimate of only 5% from longlining. A Bayesian risk assessment reveals the importance of reducing coastal sources of mortality, as well as longline bycatch, if the populations are to avoid extinction. International efforts to protect the leatherback should expand beyond focusing solely on longline bycatch and should attempt to reduce coastal harvest of adult females and eggs, as well as reduce bycatch by inshore gears such as gillnets.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207