Understanding the Complexity of Catch-and-Release in Recreational Fishing: An Integrative Synthesis of Global Knowledge from Historical, Ethical, Social, and Biological Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on catch-and-release (C&R) in recreational fishing has been conducted from a disciplinary angle focusing on the biological sciences and the study of hooking mortality after release. This hampers understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of C&R. In the present synopsis, we develop an integrative perspective on C&R by drawing on historical, philosophical, socio-psychological, biological, and managerial insights and perspectives. Such a perspective is helpful for a variety of reasons, such as 1) improving the science supporting successful fisheries management and conservation, 2) facilitating dialogue between managers, anglers, and other stakeholders, 3) minimizing conflict potentials, and 4) paving the path toward sustainable recreational fisheries management. The present work highlights the array of cultural, institutional, psychological, and biological factors and dimensions involved in C&R. Progress toward successful treatment of C&R might be enhanced by acknowledging the complexity inherent in C&R recreational fishing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".