MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2500852598 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0199

Assessment of size selectivity in hydraulic clam dredge fisheries

2016· article· en· W2500852598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonello Sala, Jure Brčić, Bent Herrmann, Alessandro Lucchetti, Massimo Virgili

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSortingSieve (category theory)Selection (genetic algorithm)FisheryBenthic zoneEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringProcess (computing)GridFisheries managementScope (computer science)Computer scienceGeologyEngineeringFishingOceanographyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In hydraulic dredge clam fisheries, the onboard mechanical sorting can be considered as the main catch selection process. The catch is mechanically sorted by a sieve made up of a series of successive grids with holes of decreasing diameter. The effect of the grid hole diameter and sorting speed of the vibrating sieve of a hydraulic dredger was investigated in a field study to determine its clam selection properties and to formulate proposals aimed at improving fishery management. Data analysis demonstrates that it is technically impossible to achieve a knife-edge selection and that there is scope for improving the size selection process, for instance by increasing grid hole diameter, which, however, can be accompanied by a reduced catch of both undersized and commercial-sized individuals. An increase in the hole diameter to 21.71 mm, while ensuring less than 5% retention of undersized individuals, would entail a retention of 67% of the commercial sizes. The modelling approach applied can be extended to investigations of other dredge gear types and nonmobile benthic species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→