The feasibility of escape mechanisms in conical snow crab traps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Winger, P. D., and Walsh, P. J. 2007. The feasibility of escape mechanisms in conical snow crab traps. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1587–1591. Laboratory observations and morphometric measurements of snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) were conducted to examine the feasibility of incorporating rigid escape mechanisms into conical snow crab traps to improve trap selectivity. Under laboratory conditions, undersized adolescent male snow crab (≤94 mm carapace width) were capable of detecting, approaching, and interacting with escape mechanisms, and the location of the mechanisms was important in determining the likelihood of escape success. Escape mechanisms mounted low on the exterior wall of the trap received more than three times the number of penetration attempts than those mounted higher, although successful escape rates were very low. There was no difference in behaviour or escape success between traditional mesh traps and experimental wire (Aquamesh®) traps fitted with escape mechanisms. Morphometric measurements suggest that an escape diameter of 95 mm would optimize the egress of small crab and prevent the loss of legal-sized crab.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".