Movement and harvesting mortality of American lobsters (<i>Homarus</i> <i>americanus</i>) tagged inside and outside no-take reserves in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the potential effectiveness of no-take reserves in sustaining fisheries for American lobster (Homarus americanus), lobster movement and survival were quantified both within and outside of two no-take reserves in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland, during 19971999. Most (58.7%) tagged lobsters were recaptured in the immediate vicinity of their original capture location. Among lobsters that moved, 77.1% traveled less than 1000 m. Lobster movement resulted in some exchange between no-take reserves and nearby harvested areas (8.7% of lobsters recaptured were in an area different from their location of tagging). Overall, little evidence was found for a relationship between lobster movement and sex, size, or time at large. Annual harvesting mortality accounted for up to 71.9% for lobsters eligible for harvest. However, many more lobsters tagged outside of no-take reserves were harvested (11.571.9%) than those tagged in no-take reserves (0.018.5%), a result of low frequency of movement between these areas. No difference was found between female and male mortality as a result of the fishery. Because the frequency of lobster emigration from reserves was relatively low and harvesting pressure outside of reserves was intense, results suggest that no-take reserves can offer increased survival to lobsters and thereby may provide benefits to fisheries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".