MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376134351 · doi:10.1080/21606544.2023.2207535

Assessing the impact of environmental variability on harvest in a heterogeneous fishery: a case study of the Canadian lobster fishery

2023· article· en· W4376134351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dana Wright, Yajie Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Economics and Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryAmerican lobsterHomarusFisheries managementClimate changeEffects of global warmingCommercial fishingGeographyGlobal warmingEcologyBiologyCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global fisheries face significant challenges in the coming years due to climate change. Understanding and anticipating the impacts of climate change is a necessity for implementing appropriate fisheries management. This study uses a panel dataset of individual fishing vessels to examine how variation in ocean temperature affects fish harvest. Using the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in the Maritimes region of Canada as a case study, this paper employs a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) taking into account heterogeneity amongst fishers, gear, vessels, and fishing areas. The GLMM is found to have better performance and estimations when compared against alternative specifications. As expected, a significant and positive relationship was found, further contributing to the existing evidence of warming impacts on the lobster fishery. The implications of this study are twofold: first, it provides further evidence that environmental change does have a significant positive impact on harvest. This information should be considered by fishing industry and fisheries authorities when implementing appropriate adaptive management strategies and measures in their decision making. Second, it illustrates that allowing for mixed-effects using GLMMs is a valuable empirical tool when dealing with hierarchical data structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Economics and PolicySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207