Engaging the Recreational Angling Community to Implement and Manage Aquatic Protected Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational angling is a popular leisure activity, the quality of which is greatly dependent on fish abundance and well-functioning aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic protected areas (APAs) are used to help maintain and even restore aquatic systems and their associated biota, including fish species that are popular with recreational anglers. Paradoxically, the use of APAs has been a source of much contention and conflict between members of the recreational angling community and those interested in or mandated to protect aquatic resources on the basis of the interests of multiple stakeholder groups. The angling community is concerned about the loss of fishing opportunities and effectiveness of APAs. Although it is still unclear whether establishment of APAs alone can effectively protect aquatic resources, actively including the recreational angling community in the design, implementation, and management of APAs will help ensure the values of this rather substantial user group are incorporated into aquatic conservation strategies. Conversely, the probability of increasing the sustainability of recreational angling and related economies will be greatest if recreational angler groups remain open minded to both short-term and long-term goals of fisheries conservation strategies, including the use of APAs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".