Does a spatiotemporal closure to fishing <i>Chrysophrys auratus</i> (Sparidae) spawning aggregations also protect individuals during migration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding migration dynamics of fishes that aggregate-spawn is critical if spatiotemporal closures to fishing are expected to protect them. Concern over fishing of Chrysophrys auratus spawning aggregations in embayments near a west Australian city led to an annual 4-month spatial fishing closure. However, the extent to which it protects fish migrating to and from aggregations is unclear. Acoustic telemetry demonstrated a bimodal pattern of entry to and departure from the main embayment via only one of several pathways. Among years, 33%–56% of fish occurred in the pathway prior to the closure, but most left before it ceased. Fish were detected within the closure in multiple but not always consecutive years. Variation in migration timing and aggregation philopatry may alter capture risk, but pre- and postspawning migratory fish are fished in the main pathway and adjacent reefs, which would presumably impact spawning aggregation biomass. Assessment of this would assist in understanding whether expansion of the closure’s spatial and temporal limits is necessary to ensure spawning biomass or whether current management is sufficient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".