Effects of different slipping methods on the mortality of sardine, Sardina pilchardus, after purse-seine capture off the Portuguese Southern coast (Algarve)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of two different slipping methods on the survival, physical and physiological response of sardines, Sardina pilchardus, captured in a purse-seine fishery were investigated in southern Portugal. Sardines were collected and transferred into holding tanks onboard a commercial fishing vessel after being captured, crowded and deliberately released using two slipping procedures: standard and modified. The standard slipping procedure aggregated fish at high densities and made them "roll over" the floatline, while the modified procedure aggregated the fish at moderate densities and enabled them to escape through an opening created by adding weights to the floatline. Both slipping methods were compared with minimally harmed non-slipped sardines (sardines collected from the loose pocket of the purse seine). Survival rates were monitored in captivity over 28 days using three replicates for each treatment. The estimated survival of sardines was 43.6% for the non-slipped fish, 44.7% for the modified slipping and 11.7% for the standard slipping treatments. Scale loss indicated the level of physical impact experienced, with dead fish from the non-slipped and modified slipping technique showing significantly lower scale loss than those fish from the standard slipping treatment within the same period. Of the physiological indicators of stress measured, cortisol, glucose, lactate and osmolality attained peak values during slipping and up to the first hours after introduction to captivity. This work indicates that although delayed mortality after release may be substantial, appropriately modified slipping techniques significantly enhance survival of slipped sardines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".