Out with the old and in with the new: T90 codends improve size selectivity in the Canadian redfish (<i>Sebastes mentella</i>) trawl fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The size selectivity of four codends were compared in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, redfish fishery (Sebastes mentella), including the regulated diamond mesh codend with a mesh opening of 90 mm (T0) and three experimental codends of different mesh openings (90, 100, 110 mm) in which the netting is turned 90° to the direction of tow (T90). Results for the regulated codend showed that there was little size selection, catching greater than 97% of redfish over all of the length classes observed. Considering the fished population, the smallest T90 codend would catch 30% fewer redfish under the minimum landing size (MLS) of 22 cm compared with the T0 codend, but would also lose 16% of catch above 22 cm. The T90 codend with 100 mm mesh opening had the same size selectivity as the smallest T90 codend. The 110 mm T90 codend would catch 50% less redfish below MLS but lose 40% of redfish above MLS. Overall, results show that T90 codends improve size selectivity in which large proportions of undersized fish are successfully released.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".