MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244368284 · doi:10.1139/f01-182

Estimating natural and fishing mortality and tag reporting rate of southern rock lobster (<i>Jasus edwardsii</i>) from a multiyear tagging model

2001· article· en· W4244368284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
SD Frusher, John M. Hoenig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryMortality rateEstimationGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEnvironmental scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fishing and natural mortality rates and tag reporting rate for rock lobsters (Jasus edwardsii) in northwest Tasmania, Australia, were estimated using multiyear tagging models. These estimates are necessary for assessment of the resource. Several models were examined that had either two or three tagging events each year, and either combined sexes or kept sexes separate. The model that best described the dynamics of the fishery utilized three tagging events within a year. The year was divided into discrete periods and, within each year, fishing effort and duration of period were used to apportion fishing and natural mortalities, respectively, to the periods. The separation of fishing mortalities by sex was not found to improve the models. Although high (1.0–1.2·year–1), the instantaneous fishing mortality estimates were comparable to estimates obtained from other methods and the relative standard errors were low. Reporting rate estimates were also precise and indicated a lack of participation by the fishing industry. Estimates of natural mortality were low (0.00–0.02·year–1) but imprecise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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