Elevations of lobster fishery groundlines in relation to their potential to entangle endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brillant, S. W., and Trippel, E. A. 2010. Elevations of lobster fishery groundlines in relation to their potential to entangle endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 355–364. Fishing gear is known to be a threat to North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), and groundlines used in the American lobster (Homarus americanus) trap fishery are hypothesized to be an integral component of entanglements that may, in some incidents, lead to mortality. This research measured the elevations above the seabed of 17 regular groundlines on commercially active lobster gear in the Bay of Fundy and evaluated several factors governing rope elevation profiles. Mean elevation was 1.6 m (s.d. = 0.9, n = 5968, range = 0.0–7.0 m). The hypothesis that groundline elevations were ≤1.0 m (predicted height of taut groundlines) was rejected (Fisher's C = 66.9, p < 0.01), as was the hypothesis that elevations were >3.0 m (approximate body height of a right whale; Fisher's C = 129.5, p < 0.01). The proportion of groundline elevations ≤1.0 m was 0.32, and that <3.0 m was 0.92. Groundline elevations were negatively related to tidal current velocity at the time of setting (p < 0.001, r2 = 0.33) and were closer to the seabed in deep than in shallow water (p < 0.05, r2 = 0.07). It is suggested that groundlines in the Bay of Fundy may not constitute a large part of the risk associated with the entanglement of right whales, because most lines remained below the elevation hypothesized to be a threat (3 m). We also identified factors within the control of fishers setting trawls that minimize groundline elevations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".