MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611492372 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0002

Improving release efficiency of cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) and haddock (<i>Melanogrammus aeglefinus</i>) in the Barents Sea demersal trawl fishery by stimulating escape behaviour

2017· article· en· W2611492372 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eduardo Grimaldo, Manu Sistiaga, Bent Herrmann, Roger B. Larsen, Jesse Brinkhof, Ivan Tatone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsHaddockGadusFisheryDemersal zoneAtlantic codGadidaeEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the ability of stimulators to improve the release efficiency of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) through the meshes of a square mesh section installed in a trawl. The section was tested in three different configurations: without any stimulation device, with a mechanical stimulation device, and with LED light stimulation devices. We analysed and compared the behaviour of cod and haddock in all three configurations based on release results and underwater recordings. Parallel to the fishing trials, we carried out fall-through tests to determine the upper physical size limits for cod and haddock to be able to escape through the square meshes in the section. This enabled us to infer whether lack of release efficiency was due to fish behaviour or release potential of the square meshes in the section. The results showed that the escape behaviour of haddock can be triggered by mechanical stimulation. In contrast, cod did not react significantly to the presence of mechanical stimulators. LED light stimulation had some effect on the behaviour of haddock, but not on 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207