MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269685235

Different means contributing to anchored FAD's fishing selectivity in the Lesser Antilles

2015· preprint· en· W2269685235 on OpenAlexaff
Lionel Reynal, Olivier Guyader, Cédric Pau, Heloise Mathieu, Clement Dromer

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersInterreg
KeywordsFishingTunaFisheryTRIPS architectureFish <Actinopterygii>GeographyBusinessBiologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to improve the sustainable development of FADs fishing, it is important to reduce the capture of juveniles or species that need a decrease in fishing effort, temporarily or definitively. Through previous statistics data coming from commercial fishing trips and new experimental fishing trips, we compared different gears and techniques selectivity for the species and the size of the capture around FADs. We also compared different type of bait used, the best hours to fish for better productivity and to target adults. Finally we look at the influence of the FAD distance from shore. We observed that fishers’ strategies have a critical influence on FADs setting and targeted species. The further the FAD is deployed and the better yield the fisherman obtain. The fishers who target Dolphin fish deploy several FADs while the others exploit generally one FAD per trip. The main results from experimental fishing trips show that the jigging technique around FADs catches blackfin tuna adults. Most of the blackfin and yellowfin tuna captures happened late in the morning and we observed a drop off after 12:00 pm. Flying fish bait (live or dead) seems to be more efficient, except for the blue marlin. An analysis of FADs governance is necessary before advising some technics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea)Same topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207