MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160189668 · doi:10.1139/f02-150

The potential use of environmental information to manage squid stocks

2002· article· en· W2160189668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David J. Agnew, J. R. Beddington, Simeon L. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryStock (firearms)SquidStock assessmentLoligoAbundance (ecology)Fisheries managementEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most commercially exploited squid species have short life cycles and stocks composed of recruits from a single cohort, the size of which is unknown prior to the fishing season. Recent studies suggest that strong environment–recruitment relationships may exist for a number of squid stocks. Using simulation models based on Falkland Island Patagonian squid (Loligo gahi), the recruit abundance of which is predicted by sea-surface temperature, we propose a method for using predictive relationships in the management of squid populations. We compare a management strategy based on recruitment prediction with historical data from the fishery, which was managed in the absence of these predictions. Our results suggest that varying effort on the basis of an environmental correlate of recruitment can reduce the risk of not meeting conservation targets while increasing yield. Effort has to be reduced in years of low abundance but licensing additional effort in years of high abundance increases long-term average catches. Even if effort levels were not allowed to vary by more than 50% between years, a management strategy for L. gahi based on prediction would have resulted in higher average catches and a reduced probability of the stock biomass falling below a notional conservation limit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207