MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524272949 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0165

Behavioural responses to fisheries capture among sharks caught using experimental fishery gear

2016· article· en· W2524272949 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Austin J. Gallagher, Erica Staaterman, Steven J. Cooke, Neil Hammerschlag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarcharhinusBycatchFisheryFishingBiologyCatch and releaseChondrichthyesRecreational fishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response to capture is important in fisheries because it can reveal potential threats to species beyond fishing mortalities resulting from direct harvest. To date, the vast majority of studies assessing shark stress responses have used physiology or biotelemetry to look at sensitivity after capture, leaving a gap in our understanding of the behaviours of sharks during capture. We examined the behavioural responses of sharks to capture by attaching accelerometers to fishing gear and measuring the immediate and prolonged forces they exerted while on the line. We recorded acceleration vectors and derived the rate of intense fighting behaviours of 23 individual sharks comprising three species. Results suggest that blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) exhibited intense bouts of fighting behaviour at the onset of hooking, while nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) displayed more subdued acceleration values during capture. We also obtained plasma lactate from a subset of individuals and detected a strong correlation with maximum acceleration. These results align with previously published values and suggest that shark movement during fisheries capture is an important factor during bycatch and catch-and-release interactions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207