MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296451128 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2022-0125

Accounting for transient dynamics could improve the use of marine protected areas as a reference point for fisheries management

2022· article· en· W4296451128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Quennessen, Elizabeth A. Babcock, J. Wilson White

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFisheries managementProxy (statistics)Environmental scienceFish stockStock (firearms)Stock assessmentMaximum sustainable yieldBiomass (ecology)Marine reserveFisheryPoint estimationMarine protected areaStatisticsEnvironmental resource managementEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeographyMathematicsHabitatBiologyFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological reference points for fishery management depend on estimates of current stock status relative to unfished biomass (depletion). The ratio of fish density outside to inside a marine reserve, the density ratio, could serve as a proxy for depletion for data-poor management. However, transient dynamics associated with time lags in returning to the unfished state following reserve implementation make that proxy inaccurate on short time scales. We assessed density ratio management rules using an age-structured, spatially explicit model of four US west coast nearshore fishes following reserve implementation, with scenarios encompassing sampling error, recruitment variability, and uncertainty in natural mortality. In deterministic simulations, management incorporating time lags generally resulted in a higher mean and lower variability in biomass over 20 years, but lower mean yield compared to management that did not. However, when stochastic recruitment was included, differences among simulations due to stochasticity were much greater than any difference in performance between management strategies. Nonetheless, in certain cases, accounting for time lags could help avoid unwarranted increases in harvest effort after reserve implementation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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