Monitoring and evaluating rockfish conservation areas in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baseline data for rockfish abundance and substrate associations were documented for newly established rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) in Howe Sound using a multilevel occupancy model, which is new to fisheries science. In 2005, a series of roaming video dives was conducted. Videotapes were scored, minute by minute, according to substrate type, revealing a strong association of rockfish with piled boulders as preferred habitat. Paired divers sighted about twice as many rockfish as were documented on videotape in the same areas (same dates). In 2006, 69 dives were conducted at 11 randomly selected RCA sites and 12 random control sites (three dives per site). Of the factors investigated, only the percentage of boulder coverage predicted rockfish abundance. In 2007–2008, side-scan sonar was deployed for locating boulder piles to streamline efficiency of dive surveys. A combination of telemetry and underwater surveys in randomly selected areas should enable unbiased, noninvasive evaluation of the effectiveness of RCAs in rebuilding populations of inshore rockfish species on the Pacific coast of Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".