Inferring fish behaviour at the trawl mouth from escape location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we used escape location underneath the trawl to understand groundfish herding behaviour at the trawl mouth. Three collecting bags (port, center, starboard) were mounted under the trawl and behind the footgear to collect escapees. The escape-at-length of species that escaped into the center bag were compared to the two wing bags to infer fish response behaviour, herding behaviour, and swimming capacity at the trawl mouth. For roundfish, smaller-sized individuals escaped more in the center for both Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) and haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus ), <20 and 11 cm, respectively, indicating that larger-sized fish were to a greater extent seeking to escape under the trawl at the wings, vs small fish being herded to the center and likely overrun due to reduced swimming capacity. For flatfish and monkfish ( Lophius piscatorius ), results varied. European plaice ( Pleuronectes platessa ), American plaice ( Hippoglossoides platessoides ), and monkfish were caught most often in the wings, though not significantly for American plaice. Catches of dab ( Limanda limanda ) between 18 and 27 cm were significantly higher in the center, with no difference for smaller and larger individuals. The differences between fish escape location likely result from a combination of varying herding behaviour, size, and swimming capacity. Here, we were able to show how these size-dependent behaviours relate to fish response behaviour, escape behaviour, size, and likely swimming capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".