An examination of the factors affecting the sustainability of the Newfoundland & Labrador snow crab fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery has become the backbone of the fishing industry since the closure of the groundfish fishery in the early 1990's. In 2003, snow crab contributed approximately $277 million to the total landed value of the fishery. This represented 50 per cent of the total landed value for the entire fishing industry. -- For the fishing industry, snow crab expansion has been the order of the day throughout the 90's. However, in 2000, based on the fall surveys of 1999, warning signs were raised. As a result, snow crab quotas were cut for the first time in over a decade. Since 2000, the crab fishery has been showing signs of declines in certain areas. The fear among industry is that this trend is going to continue and spread to other or all areas. -- A key management objective of the snow crab fishery is to protect the reproductive potential of the resource. The reproductive potential is thought to be protected by the retention of only snow crabs over 95mm (3.74 inches) carapace width and discarding all female crab. Given that the resource is declining two questions arise. First, why is this resource declining given the current management strategy? Second, what can be done to prevent the snow crab resource from further reduction? Hence, this study will review the NL crab fishery to examine the factors affecting its sustainability. The focus of this study will consist of an examination of the snow crab biology, discuss the development of the snow crab fishery, state the importance of the snow crab fishery to the NL economy, identify factors affecting sustainability (natural and man made), with special emphasis on snow crab discards, exploring other fishing related impacts and method of harvest. Finally, the study will identify possible measures to protect the reproductive potential of the resource.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".