MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Sustainability of the International Trade in Seahorses with a Single Minimum Size Limit

2005· article· en· W2152408008 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Foster, Amanda C. J. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeahorseCITESBiologyBycatchFishingFisheryPopulationFisheries managementEndangered speciesEcologyPopulation sizeDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Management tools are needed to help regulate the international trade in seahorses ( Hippocampus spp.) under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora. Given the limited understanding of seahorse population dynamics and fishing mortality, a single minimum size limit for all seahorse species appears to be a useful initial step toward adaptive management, both biologically and socially. We collected data on maximum height and size at first maturity for 32 seahorse species and cross‐validated the data with results from an analysis across marine teleosts. A minimum height restriction of 10 cm would permit, based on calculated data, reproduction in 15 species before they recruited to the fishery. Of the remaining 17 species, 16 were essentially not in international trade, were safeguarded under domestic legislation, or were partly protected by this size limit. Only one species, H. kelloggi , was not well served by the 10‐cm minimum size limit. The CITES technical committee on animals has now decided to propose this single size limit to all 167 signatory nations as one option toward sustainable trade. Complementary management measures for seahorses are also required, particularly for populations primarily exploited in bycatch.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207