MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3004193380 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2019-0313

Re-evaluating Atlantic cod mortality including lobster bycatch: where could we be today?

2020· article· en· W3004193380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Boenish, Yong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadusBycatchDiscardsFisheryAtlantic codFishingHomarusStock assessmentStock (firearms)American lobsterCod fisheriesFisheries managementCommercial fishingPollockEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full accounting of fisheries mortality is one of the most tractable ways to improve stock assessments. However, it can be challenging to obtain in cases when missing catch comes from small-scale nontarget fisheries unrequired to report incidental catch. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Gulf of Maine (GoM), USA, once served as a regionally important fishery, but has been serially depleted to <5% of historic spawning stock biomass. Recent management efforts to rebuild GoM cod have largely failed. We test the hypothesis that unaccounted bycatch of Atlantic cod in the Maine American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery is a substantial missing piece in the GoM Atlantic cod assessment. We integrated multiple scenarios of hind-casted discards into the two accepted regional cod assessment models from 1982 to 2016. Incorporation of discards improved the assessment bias for both models (10%–15%), increased estimates of spawning stock biomass (4%), and decreased estimates of fishing mortality (9%). A novel evaluation of longitudinal model bias suggests that alternative modelling approaches or specifications may be warranted. We highlight the importance of accounting for all fishery-related mortality and the need for methods to deliver more comprehensive estimates from both target and nontarget fisheries.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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