Recreational fishing, health and well-being: findings from a cross-sectional survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the associations between marine recreational fishing, stress, seafood consumption, and sleep quality in a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of a convenience sample of 244 fishers recruited in 2019 in Spain. Fishers' stress levels were moderate, with a mean stress index score of 36.4 units on a scale from 14 (very low stress) to 70 (very high). Their average emotional condition was positive, with a mean index of negative affect of 7.8 units on a scale from 5 (very low negative affect) to 25 (very high). Seafood intake was low, with a mean index of seafood in diets of 38.0 units on a scale from 20 (very low seafood consumption) to 160 (very high). Fishers' perceived quality of night sleep was good because the mean index of sleep problems was 39.5 units on a scale from 21 (very low sleep problems) to 107 (very high). Each hour of self-reported monthly fishing activity was associated with 0.016 units of lower stress score. Thus, the most engaged fishers reported up to 15.4% lower stress score than less avid fishers. Since recreational fishing is a highly accessible outdoor activity for people in older age groups, it is possible that public health could be improved by access to sustainably managed recreational fisheries. Fishing engagement was positively associated with seafood intake. Each hour of fishing per month was associated with one-unit higher seafood consumption. The higher seafood consumption observed among avid recreational fishers compared with less avid fishers might have health implications.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it