MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162848597 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.591496

Hard to Manage? Dynamics of Soft-Shell Crab in the Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab Fishery

2021· article· en· W3162848597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darrell Mullowney, Krista D. Baker, Julia R. Pantin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryFishingSnowPopulationFisheries managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207