Prevalence of interactions between Hawaiian monk seals (Nemonachus schauinslandi) and nearshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determine the prevalence and characteristics of interactions between the Hawaiian monk seal (Nemonachus schauinslandi) and nearshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands and examine impacts to the subpopulation. We documented 139 monk seal–fisheries interactions between 1976 and 2014: 132 hookings typically involving large circle hooks accompanied by slide-bait rigging, and 7 gill-net entanglements. We individually identified 297 monk seals between 1988 and 2014 and recorded that 83 (28%) of these had at least one documented hooking or entanglement. Most individuals were aged two years or younger and a quarter of them were hooked or entangled multiple times. Documented fisheries interactions typically occurred at a monk seal’s natal island and most frequently on Kauai and Oahu. Fisheries interaction was directly implicated in 11 monk seal deaths and was slightly higher in frequency than other known mortality factors. The proportion of monk seals alive one year after a documented fisheries interaction varied by age class and ranged between 76% and 84%. Survival one year later for monk seals with a documented fisheries interaction versus matched controls (all age classes combined) was not significantly different. Nonetheless, fully understanding the scale and impacts of fisheries interactions, as well as mitigating these impacts, is important if the monk seal population of the main Hawaiian Islands is to maintain a positive growth trajectory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".