MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387050116 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i3.1614

Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus pelagicus) Fishery Status in Lianga Bay, Surigao del Sur, Philippines

2023· article· en· W4387050116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio G. Gascon, Fabio C. Ruaza, Bernardita G. Quevedo, Jaynos R. Cortes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortunus pelagicusFisheryBayCarapaceFishingCatch per unit effortGeographyFisheries managementBycatchEnvironmental scienceBiologyCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the catch per unit effort (CPUE), fishing gears used, catch volume, carapace length, and physico-chemical parameters of the Blue Swimming Crab (BSC) in the four municipalities of Lianga Bay, Surigao del Sur, Philippines, namely Barobo, Lianga, San Agustin, and Marihatag. The survey questionnaire was deployed based on the Blue Swimming Crab Management Plan (BSCMP). After three months of observation, Barobo obtained the highest CPUE while Marihatag had the lowest. Barobo also had the highest CPUE using a gill net and crab pot while San Agustin had the lowest using bintol. In terms of catch, the monthly trend showed that March had the highest catch, while April had the least. The frequency distribution of the carapace length showed a unimodal pattern in all municipalities. The physico-chemical parameters of the water were within tolerable limits for the BSC. This study provides baseline data on the BSC fishery in Lianga Bay, which can be used in developing sustainable management strategies for the BSC fishery in the area, ensuring its long-term viability while promoting conservation efforts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207