Reflections on the influence of a synthesis of circle‐hook evidence on the angling community and conservation policy and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how different forms of environmental evidence inform the actions of different stakeholders is useful to improve how we share knowledge with knowledge users. Reflections on a literature review that we published in 2004 on circle hooks as a tool for fish conservation in the recreational fishing sector identified a number of ways in which that synthesis was influential. The article has had direct influence on policy and regulations in a number of countries, but there were even more examples of where the article has been used to influence voluntary guidelines. The article also contributed to formally defining circle hooks, which was necessary from a regulatory and enforcement perspective. The recreational fishing community has also embraced the work, with numerous angling articles based on the literature review appearing in the media and with some angler organizations pushing for the adoption of circle hooks. The fishing tackle industry has also responded with evidence that circle hooks are now more widely available in stores with more hook design options to suit diverse recreational fisheries. In addition, the influence of the article has extended beyond the recreational sector to commercial fishery issues that span several taxa. The research agenda from the article helped to direct research for more than a decade and has since been updated. Overall, this review was timely in that it provided various knowledge users with credible information synthesized in a thoughtful manner at a time when there was interest and need in exploring circle hooks as a tool to enhance the conservation of angled fish. Although this was not a systematic review, it still served as a form of evidence synthesis that gave diverse knowledge users information to guide them in their decisions.
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 | 0.423 | 0.603 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".