MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032896018 · doi:10.1002/fsh.10487

Micro-Fishing as an Emerging Form of Recreational Angling: Research Gaps and Policy Considerations

2020· article· en· W3032896018 on OpenAlex
Steven J. Cooke, Robert J. Lennox, Ben Cantrell, Andy J. Danylchuk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFishingRecreational fishingFisheryRecreationCatch and releaseBusinessNatural resource economicsGeographyEconomicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Micro-fishing is an emerging form of recreational angling that targets small-bodied fish in inland and marine waters. Although most fish are presumably released, some are retained as specimens for home aquaria or dissection to confirm identification. To date, very little is known about the effects of Micro-fishing on individuals (e.g., stress, injury, mortality), populations, or communities owing to a historical focus on large-bodied species in recreational fisheries. We identify a list of research gaps that should be addressed to better elucidate motivations and identify any potential negative effects of Micro-fishing and how they could be mitigated. We also consider the implications of Micro-fishing for policy and management, recognizing the many uncertainties given lack of empirical research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.252 · 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