The thin edge of the wedge: Extremely high extinction risk in wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The process of understanding the rapid global decline of sawfishes (Pristidae) has revealed great concern for their relatives, the wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and giant guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae), not least because all three families are targeted for their high‐value and internationally traded ‘white’ fins. The objective of this study was to assess the extinction risk of all 10 wedgefishes and six giant guitarfishes by applying the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria, and to summarize the latest understanding of their biogeography and habitat, life history, exploitation, use and trade, and population status. Three of the 10 wedgefish species had not been assessed previously for the IUCN Red List. Wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes have overtaken sawfishes as the most imperilled marine fish families globally, with all but one of the 16 species facing an extremely high risk of extinction through a combination of traits: limited biological productivity; presence in shallow waters overlapping with some of the most intense and increasing coastal fisheries in the world; and overexploitation in target and by‐catch fisheries, driven by the need for animal protein and food security in coastal communities and the trade in meat and high‐value fins. Two species with very restricted ranges, the clown wedgefish ( Rhynchobatus cooki ) of the Malay Archipelago and the false shark ray ( Rhynchorhina mauritaniensis ) of Mauritania, may be very close to extinction. Only the eyebrow wedgefish ( Rhynchobatus palpebratus ) is not assessed as Critically Endangered, with it occurring primarily in Australia where fishing pressure is low and some management measures are in place. Australia represents a ‘lifeboat’ for the three wedgefish and one giant guitarfish species occurring there. To conserve populations and permit recovery, a suite of measures will be required that will need to include species protection, spatial management, by‐catch mitigation, and harvest and international trade management, all of which will be dependent on effective enforcement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".