Harvest–release decisions in recreational fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most fishery regulations aim to control angler harvest. Yet, we lack a basic understanding of what actually determines the angler’s decision to harvest or release fish caught. We used XGBoost, a machine learning algorithm, to develop a predictive angler harvest–release model by taking advantage of an extensive recreational fishery data set (24 water bodies, 9 years, and 193 523 fish). We were able to successfully predict the harvest–release outcome for 99% of fish caught in the training data set and 96% of fish caught in the test data set. Unsuccessful predictions were mostly attributed to predicting harvest of fish that were released. Fish length was the most essential feature examined for predicting angler harvest. Other important predictive harvest–release features included the number of individuals of the same species caught, geographic location of an angler’s residence, distance traveled, and time spent fishing. The XGBoost algorithm was able to effectively predict the harvest–release decision and revealed hidden and intricate relationships that are often unaccounted for with classical analysis techniques. Exposing and accounting for these angler–fish intricacies is critical for fisheries conservation and management.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".