MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207054726 · doi:10.1002/nafm.10750

Microfishing for Juvenile Bluegill: A Catch-and-Release Study on an Emerging Form of Recreational Angling

2022· article· en· W4207054726 on OpenAlexaff
Declan Burton, Andy J. Danylchuk, Steven J. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHookFishingJuvenileFisheryRecreational fishingRecreationCatch and releaseFish <Actinopterygii>Range (aeronautics)BiologyLepomis macrochirusEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Microfishing is an emerging form of predominantly catch-and-release recreational angling with the main target being diverse small-bodied nongame fish species and the early life stages of traditional game fish. While there has been an apparent increase in interest in microfishing, little is known about its impacts on fish and fisheries. Here we compared the effects of two hook sizes (i.e., a size 22 hook and a somewhat larger, yet still smaller than normal, size 12 hook) on aspects of injury, handling, and mortality for juvenile Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (size range of 69 to 141 mm; n = 54 for each hook size). Hook size was determined to have a significant influence upon injury and mortality. The smaller hooks resulted in longer handling time, more extensive tissue damage arising from challenges of hook removal, and higher levels of short-term mortality (n = 12, 22%) than the larger hooks (n = 2, 4%). Additional research is needed to develop best practices and management strategies for this emerging form of recreational angling on a wider range of species.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207