MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2969325535 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2019-0035

Assessing the potential to mitigate climate-related expansion of largemouth bass populations using angler harvest

2019· article· en· W2969325535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher J. Sullivan, Daniel A. Isermann, Kaitlin E. Whitlock, Jonathan F. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryMicropterusFishingBass (fish)Catch and releaseFisheries managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyRecreational fishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate-related changes in fish communities can present new challenges for fishery managers who must address declines in cool- and cold-water sportfish while dealing with increased abundance of warm-water sportfish. We used largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Wisconsin lakes as model populations to determine whether angler harvest provides a realistic method for reducing abundance of a popular warm-water sportfish that has become more prevalent and has prompted management concerns around the globe. Model results indicate largemouth bass will be resilient to increased fishing mortality. Furthermore, high rates of voluntary catch-and-release occurring in most largemouth bass fisheries likely preclude fishing mortality rates required to reduce bass abundance at meaningful levels (≥25% reductions). Increasing fishing mortality in these scenarios may require more “stimulus” than merely providing anglers with greater harvest opportunities via less stringent harvest regulations. Angler harvest could result in populations dominated by small fish, a scenario that may be undesirable to anglers, but could provide ecological benefits in certain situations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→