A comparison of catch efficiency and bycatch reduction of tuna pole-and-line fisheries using Japan tuna hook (JT-hook) and circle-shaped hook (C-hook)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unwanted bycatch of sea turtles in the tuna fisheries is a global challenge. To evaluate whether the incidental catch of sea turtles could be reduced through changes in fishing gear, this study compared catch rates and bycatch in the tuna pole-and-line with the addition of above-water lights (PL) fisheries using a Japan tuna hook (JT-hook) and a circle-shaped hook (C-hook). There were two phases to this study. First, five PL fishing vessels that used traditional JT-hooks were compared with five PL fishing vessels that used circle-shaped hooks throughout 1 full year of fishing. Results showed that C-hooks significantly reduced bycatch of sea turtle, while negligibly increasing the catch of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (Thunnus obesus) tuna. Second, we conducted the onboard research to investigate the effect of JT-hook v. C-hook on the catch rates of commercial PL fishery. Results showed that there were higher catch rates of long snouted lancefish (Alepisaurus ferox) and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), but lower catches of thresher shark (Alopias spp.) on C-hooks, with no significant differences for other species considered. Our results suggest that the use of C-hooks in the PL fishery is beneficial to protected endangered sea turtle 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".