Escape panels in trawls: does placement matter when every individual contacting the panel can escape?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escape panels are one of the bycatch reduction devices most used in trawl fisheries but their efficiency rely on fish actively contacting the panel to escape. To investigate if contact behaviour changes at different panel placements, we tested a 300 mm square mesh panel placed in the upper panel of the codend at 3, 4 and 7 m from the codline. Seven competing models of contact probability were fitted to the empirical data. Based on the results, we inferred that panel placement significantly affects escape efficiency due to a change in type of contact behaviour. Cod ( Gadus morhua) showed a contact increasing with length when the panel was closest to the codline, while contact probability decreased with length at the other placements. Similarly, contact probability for plaice ( Pleuronectes platessa) was found to increase with length at 3 and 4 m, whereas a length-independent contact best represented the data at 7 m. Finally, Nephrops ( Nephrops norvegicus) had in general low contact probability. The results provide new knowledge regarding species and placement-dependent panel escape.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".