Influence of four hook types across four hook removal tools, including bare hands, on the effectiveness of hook removal and reflex impairment of Bluegill (<i>Lepomis macrochirus</i>) captured from a lake in Eastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hook removal devices have been developed to enable rapid release of angled fish, yet little research has evaluated their effectiveness and potential for injury among hook types. We compared the performance of hook removal tools and bare hands with four hook types on freshwater Lepomid sunfish. Dehooking performance was assessed using hook removal time, unhooking difficulty, degree of tissue damage at the hooking location, and immediate reflex impairment. Unhooking difficulty was positively related to hooking depth. Unhooking difficulty was lowest for hemostats and the mechanical dehooking device; however, the mechanical dehooking device caused the largest tearing of mouth tissue. Unhooking difficulty was the main driver for hook removal time, tissue tear length, and overall reflex impairment. Hooks that were harder to remove caused higher reflex impairment. Hook type had little influence on the effectiveness of hook removal tools, although circle hooks were more difficult to remove and caused greater injury when using tools. Although use of hook removal tools can be beneficial for fish that are released, more research is needed on more species targeted by recreational anglers, and more hook removal tools. We suggest that hemostats should be used to remove hooks from fish to reduce unhooking difficulty, tissue tears, long air exposure, and thereby to increase the welfare of the fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".