MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258863998 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv234

Discards, hooking, and post-release mortality of porbeagle (<i>Lamna nasus</i>), shortfin mako (<i>Isurus oxyrinchus</i>), and blue shark (<i>Prionace glauca</i>) in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery

2015· article· en· W2258863998 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven E. Campana, Warren Joyce, Mark Fowler, M. A. SHOWELL

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of Oceanography
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryPelagic zoneFishingDiscardsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global discards of sharks greatly exceed reported landings, yet there are few estimates of mortality after release. Based on more than 21 000 fisheries observer records and the results of 109 popup satellite archival tags, all sources of fishing-induced mortality (harvest, capture, and post-release) were estimated for blue sharks ( Prionace glauca ), shortfin mako ( Isurus oxyrinchus ), and porbeagle ( Lamna nasus ) in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery between 2010 and 2014. Hooking mortality ranged from 15 to 44%, with porbeagles and makos experiencing much greater mortality than blue sharks. The post-release mortality rate varied between 10 and 31%, with porbeagle and mako again having the highest mortality rate. Overall, about one-half of the hooked porbeagles and makos died during or after fishing, with most of the post-release mortality occurring within 2 d of release. Landed catch accounted for less mortality in porbeagle and blue sharks than did the combination of hooking and post-release mortality. These results indicate that the conservation benefits of mandatory release regulations for pelagic longline gear are not nearly as great as is now assumed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations86
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207