MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100344030 · doi:10.1071/mf06223

The state of research on chondrichthyan fishes

2007· article· en· W2100344030 on OpenAlexaff
Terence I. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Freshwater Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
KeywordsFishingFisheryFisheries managementEndangered speciesBiodiversityCITESAction planConvention on Biological DiversityHabitatBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than a decade has passed since the Convention for Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) first alerted the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the urgent need to establish programs for collecting biological and trade data and for managing the impacts of fishing on shark populations.By 2000, FAO had developed the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) to form part of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.Under the IPOA-Sharks, each of more than 80 signatory nations is obliged to develop and implement a National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, where the term 'shark' covers all chondrichthyan groups (sharks, batoids, and holocephalans) (Anon. 2000).The IPOA-Sharks emphasises that the harvest of chondrichthyan fishes should be biologically sustainable, economically rational, utilising all body parts of the sharks killed, and managed to ensure biodiversity conservation and maintenance of ecosystem structure and function.However, despite the best intentions for better management by many nations, fishing for these species continues to increase in response to the evergrowing demand for shark meat and other products from these animals.Shark fins, for example, are among the most highly priced fisheries products in eastern Asia and this is stimulating the targeting of sharks and retention of only their fins, the practice known as 'finning'.Direct fishing mortality is not the only impact on chondrichthyan populations.There are fishing impacts on habitats through disturbance of biotic communities and substrates.Shipping and underwater exploration, construction, mining, and electrical installation also affect habitats, and increasing ambient sound, light, electromagnetic fields, and chemical contamination stimulate the sensory systems of chondrichthyan fishes.Understanding and measuring responses to these impacts and others such as from invasive species and perhaps aquaculture pose enormous research challenges.An overlay to complicate the research difficulties addressing these impacts is the uncertain magnitude of climate change, the effects of which have the potential to obscure the effects of fishing and other anthropogenic activities.Research will have to be an important component of developing appropriate management responses to address many of these impacts.Innovative approaches are required for collecting

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207