A comparison of claw removal methods on the post-release survival and claw regeneration of stone crab ( <i>Menippe mercenaria</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Commercial and recreational stone crab ( Menippe mercenaria ) fisheries primarily occur along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts of the southeastern United States and the northeastern Caribbean. The fishery is unique in that only the crabs’ claws are retained and the animal is returned to the water alive. While the fishery is often regarded as sustainable because it is believed to exploit the crabs’ natural ability to voluntarily drop (autotomize) and regenerate lost claws, the post-release survival of de-clawed stone crabs is often low, especially when both claws are harvested. In this study, a controlled laboratory experiment was used to compare a new method of claw removal to the typical method currently used in the fishery. For the two different claw removal methods, we compared crab survival and start time to claw regeneration as a function of harvester and whether one claw or both claws were removed. Overall, we found a significant effect of the removal method, harvester, and whether one claw or both claws were removed on crab survival, but these factors did not influence the time to start of claw regeneration. Although our new method was several seconds slower in processing time than the typical method, it resulted in a 28% increase in survival (up to 92% survival throughout the study) compared to the typical method of claw removal (64% survival throughout the study). Overall, these results suggest that our new method of claw removal significantly increases post-release survival of stone crabs, and most notably does so independent of harvester and whether one claw or both claws are removed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".