MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109380286 · doi:10.1111/faf.12526

Ghosts of the deep – Biodiversity, fisheries, and extinction risk of ghost sharks

2020· article· en· W3109380286 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Finucci, Jessica Cheok, David A. Ebert, Katelyn B. Herman, Peter M. Kyne, Nicholas K. Dulvy

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIUCN Red ListThreatened speciesData deficientGeographyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Endangered speciesFisheryFishingNear-threatened speciesBiodiversityEcologyGenusConservation-dependent speciesVulnerable speciesEndemismSpecies richnessBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ghost sharks (subclass Holocephali) remain a largely data‐poor group of cartilaginous fishes. The general paucity of attention may partially be related to identification and unresolved taxonomic issues, occurrence in the deep oceans, and their low value and interest in fisheries (which some notable exceptions). Here, we synthesize and assess the extinction risk of all known extant ghost sharks (52 species) by applying the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Categories and Criteria. Ghost sharks have a low proportion of threatened (8%) and Near Threatened (8%) species, with most species (69%) assessed as Least Concern. The group still exhibits some data deficiency (15%), and biological information is lacking for most species. Endemism is high, with 37% of species known from only one location or one country. Species richness was highest in the Northeast Atlantic, off the northwest coast of Africa (Morocco to Mauritania), the East China Sea, New Zealand and off the northwest coast of South America (Ecuador and Peru). Ghost sharks are predominately taken as by‐catch, but some targeted fishing and/or retention for the liver oil trade occurs. Species‐specific reporting, monitoring and management are required to assess population trends, and further investigation is needed on trade and use, particularly for higher risk species including the sicklefin chimaeras (genusNeoharriotta) and the American Elephantfish (Callorhynchus callorhynchus, Callorhinidae).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207