Overturning stereotypes: The fuzzy boundary between recreational and subsistence inland fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inland recreational fisheries provide numerous socio‐economic benefits to fishers, families and communities. Recreationally harvested fish are also frequently consumed and may provide affordable and sustainable but undervalued contributions to human nutrition. Quantifying the degree to which recreationally harvested fish contribute to food security and subsistence is impeded by lack of data on harvest and consumption and by the difficulty in differentiating among recreational and subsistence fisheries. Recreational harvest records tend to be limited to wealthy, food‐secure countries and well‐monitored fisheries with clear regulations or permitting systems. These records often neglect components of recreational harvest among food‐insecure fishers who are potentially more likely to have consumption as a motivation. Here, we highlight the ‘fuzzy boundary’ that can exist between inland recreational and subsistence fisheries and argue that unreported consumption is likely to be a hidden contributor to food security in some populations. We draw on local case studies from around the world to highlight specific instances where recreationally harvested fish species contribute food and subsistence benefits to participating communities. We use these examples to highlight the diversity of ways that inland recreational fisheries contribute to human nutrition, knowledge gaps in understanding recreational fishing for food, and consequences of not accounting for them as food fisheries in policy and management. The aim of this paper is to draw the attention of resource managers and policy makers, create greater social awareness of the importance of recreational fisheries and bring to light this hidden contribution of inland fisheries to nutrition and subsistence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 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".