MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967325650 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0443

Shorter trawls improve size selection of northern shrimp

2019· article· en· W2967325650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ólafur Arnar Ingólfsson, Terje Jørgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFiskeri - og havbruksnæringens forskningsfond
KeywordsShrimpFisheryBycatchCarapaceBiologyDiscardsTrawlingDecapodaCrustaceanEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discards of small northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) are a problem in the Skagerrak northern shrimp trawl fishery. To reduce catches of small shrimp, we studied the effect of trawl belly length on size selectivity in November 2017 and June 2018 onboard 15 and 27 m double-rigged shrimp trawlers. The selectivity of the vessels’ standard trawl was compared with a trawl differing only in the belly length, being 37% shorter. The trawls had 40 mm bottom panels and cod ends of 35 mm mesh sizes. Eleven and 14 hauls were made, respectively, in 2017 aboard the 15 m vessel and in 2018 aboard the 27 m vessel. The trawls fished shrimp above 19 mm carapace length equally, while catch rates of shrimp below 15.5–16 mm carapace length in the shorter trawl were more than halved. The results were consistent between the two vessels. In short, modifying trawl length is a simple design modification that can reduce catches of small shrimp. Bycatch of Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) was slightly reduced in the shorter trawl, unrelated to fish length.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→