Hard to Manage? Dynamics of Soft-Shell Crab in the Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capture of recently molted soft-shell crab in the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery is undesirable due to resource wastage associated with low meat yield and supposed high mortality rates upon discard. This study is intended to formalize best-practice management advice for avoidance of soft-shell crab in the fishery. The study investigates factors affecting soft-shell incidence in the catch across a large geographic stock range encompassing dynamic habitat and contrasting harvest rate strategies. The results demonstrate an interaction between seasonality and harvest rate in governing soft-shell crab levels in the fishery. Greatest potential for high soft-shell incidence occurs in late-spring or summer (June–July) fisheries in warm water populations subjected to heavy fishing pressure, with warm water populations shown to be associated with earlier molting periods. The study concludes that the optimal time to harvest snow crab is during winter or early spring, and advises that wherever winter or early spring fisheries are not possible, a best-practice management strategy is to minimize wastage by maintaining a strong residual biomass of large hard-shell males in the population at all times. This strategy is easily enabled by consistent application of low exploitation rates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".