MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3174706113 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2021-0044

Fine-scale behavior of red snapper (<i>Lutjanus campechanus</i>) around bait: approach distances, bait plume dynamics, and effective fishing area

2021· article· en· W3174706113 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathan M. Bacheler, Brendan J. Runde, Kyle W. Shertzer, Jeffrey A. Buckel, Paul J. Rudershausen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryFishingEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>PlumeReefCoral reef fishEcologyBiologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behavior of fish around bait is poorly understood despite it being important for the fish catching process and estimating relative abundance. We used a fine-scale acoustic positioning system to quantify the movements of 26 red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) around 120 bait deployments in 2019 at a natural reef site (∼37-m deep) in North Carolina, USA. There were 39 instances of tagged red snapper approaching bait during four baiting days, some of which approached due to apparent sensory cues (28%), while most approached incidentally (72%). Tagged red snapper approached bait from initial distances of 1 to 1147 m (median = 27 m; mean = 86 m), and took 0–77 min (mean = 22 min) to approach. Fish were more likely to approach bait if they were located close to, and down-current of, the bait at deployment. Our estimated effective fishing area of 2290 m2 (within which >50% of red snapper responded to bait) could be used along with video counts and other information to estimate densities of red snapper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→