MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2166813466 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0100

Catchability of snow crab (<i>Chionoecetes opilio</i>) by the eastern Bering Sea bottom trawl survey estimated using a catch comparison experiment

2013· article· en· W2166813466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David A. Somerton, Kenneth L. Weinberg, Scott Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrawlingFisheryCarapaceEnvironmental scienceOtterOceanographyBycatchFishingCrustaceanBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catchability of the eastern Bering Sea (EBS) bottom trawl survey for snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) was estimated from experimental data to provide a constraint on the survey catchability parameters in the stock assessment model. The experiment utilized a second fishing vessel to conduct side-by-side trawling with each of two survey vessels at 92 stations using an experimental trawl assumed to capture all crabs in its path. Trawl efficiency, or the captured proportion of crabs in the trawl path, was estimated for the 83-112 Eastern otter trawl from experimental data using a nonparametric smooth function of carapace width, sediment size, and depth. Survey catchability was then estimated as the catch-weighted average of the predicted trawl efficiency at all 275 survey stations where snow crabs were captured. The fitted model indicated that trawl selectivity was greater in sand than mud and greater in shallow water than deep. At a carapace widths >95 mm, the minimum commercial size limit, the estimated survey catchability of males is considerably less than previously reported.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→