Lack of recreational fishing compliance may compromise effectiveness of Rockfish Conservation Areas in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compliance with spatial fishing regulations (e.g., marine protected areas, fishing closures) is one of the most important, yet rarely measured, determinants of ecological recovery. We used aerial observations of recreational fishing events from creel surveys before, during, and after 77 Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) were established in British Columbia, Canada. There was no evidence of a change in fishing effort in 83% of the RCAs, and effort in five RCAs increased after establishment. Fishing effort in open areas adjacent to the RCAs declined with time and was higher than effort in the RCAs in all 3 years. Next, we used compliance data for 105 RCAs around Vancouver Island to model the drivers of compliance. Compliance was related to the level of fishing effort around the RCA, the size and perimeter-to-area ratio of RCAs, proximity to fishing lodges, and the level of enforcement. Noncompliance in RCAs may be hampering their effectiveness and impeding rockfish recovery. Education and enforcement efforts to reduce fishing effort inside protected areas are critical to the recovery of depleted fish stocks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".