MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912169197 · doi:10.7717/peerj.6308

Improving the efficiency of the Fukui trap as a capture tool for the invasive European green crab ( <i>Carcinus maenas</i> ) in Newfoundland, Canada

2019· article· en· W2912169197 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan A. Bergshoeff, Cynthia H. McKenzie, Brett Favaro

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarcinus maenasFisheryCrustaceanBayTrap (plumbing)DecapodaCatch per unit effortFishingInvasive speciesEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyArchaeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European green crab ( Carcinus maenas ) is a crustacean species native to European and North African coastlines that has become one of the world’s most successful marine invasive species. Targeted fishing programs aimed at removing green crabs from invaded ecosystems commonly use Fukui multi-species marine traps. Improving the efficiency of these traps would improve the ability to respond to green crab invasions. In this study, we developed four distinct trap modifications that were designed to facilitate the successful capture of green crabs, with the goal of improving the performance of the Fukui trap. We tested these modifications in situ during the summer of 2016 at two locations in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. We discovered that three of our modified Fukui trap designs caught significantly more green crabs than the standard Fukui trap, increasing catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) by as much as 81%. We conclude that our top-performing modifications have great potential for widespread use with existing Fukui traps that are being used for green crab removal efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207