Will you swim into my parlour?<i>In situ</i>observations of Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) interactions with baited pots, with implications for gear design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Pots produce lower environmental impacts than many other fishing gears, but they will only be a viable fishing strategy if they are efficient and selective at catching their target species. To study the behaviour of cod in and around pots, and how those behaviours affect pot efficiency, we used long-duration underwater video cameras to assess two models of cod pot deployed in the nearshore waters of Fogo Island, NL. We examined the number of cod that approached the pot, the number and proportion that successfully completed entries into the pot openings, and the number that exited, and related these factors to the direction of water movement. We observed very few entry attempts relative to the number of approaches by cod, and only 22% of all entry attempts were successful. We observed that 50% of approaches, 70% of entry attempts, and 73% of successful entrances occurred against the current, and 25% of cod were able to exit the pot following capture. Based on our observations, we suggest that future cod pots should have a greater number of entrances, or a mechanism to ensure that entrances rotate in line with the current, in order to maximize their catch efficiency for cod.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".