Efficacy of conservation measures for the American lobster: reproductive value as a criterion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Xu, C., and Schneider, D. C. 2012. Efficacy of conservation measures for the American lobster: reproductive value as a criterion – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 1831–1839. Reproductive value takes into account both current and future value, effectively characterizing the value of an individual to the population. In this study, we use reproductive value as a criterion to evaluate the effectiveness of several conservation measures that have been undertaken or proposed for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in Newfoundland. These measures are slot fishing (i.e. no fishing below or above certain sizes), marine protected areas (MPAs), V-notching, and window fishing (i.e. no fishing within a size window). Reproductive value was estimated by using catch length data available from commercial fisheries and research surveys. We found that MPAs had the greatest effect, followed by V-notching and slot-fishing. MPAs resulted in an average increase of 64.9% in total reproductive value, V-notching an average increase of 18.3%, and slot fishing an average increase of 16.8%. In general, window fishing was not effective unless the size of the window was large. For instance, an average increase of 8.7% in total reproductive value would require a wide window (100–129 mm). Our results provide a scientific basis for evaluating conservation measures in a way that integrates population demographical information with information from commercial fisheries and research surveys.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".