MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328226629 · doi:10.3354/esr00704

Risk perceptions and conservation ethics among recreational anglers targeting threatened sharks in the subtropical Atlantic

2015· article· en· W2328226629 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEndangered Species Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFlorida Sea Grant, University of FloridaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Miami
KeywordsThreatened speciesMiamiRecreationFisheryEndangered speciesGeographyFishingEnvironmental resource managementEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recreational fisheries management has traditionally been more concerned with quantifiable, catch-centric goals than angler-centric perceptions. However, the attitudes of fishers affect their behavior, which can alter the effort they make towards conservation actions, and ultimately, the outcome for exploited or threatened species. We conducted a quantitative human dimensions study into the drivers of conservation attitudes and perceptions of recreational fishers towards sharks. This was accomplished through a targeted online snowball survey on a sample of 158 recreational anglers in the state of Florida, a global hotspot for recreational fishing. Subjective knowledge of shark conservation issues was the most consistent driver for pro-shark conservation attitudes. Anglers ranked the great hammerhead and tiger shark as being the most threatened species, a result that is generally consistent with empirical data. Anglers did not identify speciesspecific differences in capture stress as an important factor in determining survivability, a result that somewhat contradicts available empirical data. In general, fishers were more supportive of management actions that would be the least restrictive to fishing, except in the case of highly threatened species. Anglers believed commercial fishing had the largest impact on shark populations, and recreational fishing the least, which is largely consistent with empirical information but could also reflect angler bias. Taken together, our findings suggest anglers generally care about shark conservation, but are unaware of some potential angling threats to sharks and possible conservation solutions. Further, anglers who consider themselves knowledgeable about shark conservation will be more sympathetic to shark management and more likely to adopt fishing practices that reduce shark mortality and sub-lethal impacts.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.235 · 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