MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393002712 · doi:10.3390/fishes9030109

Assessing the Technical and Economic Viability of Galvanizing Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio) Traps

2024· article· en· W4393002712 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFishes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalvanizationSnowFisheryEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyChemistryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial harvesting of snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) began in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, in 1967. Today, the fishery consists of 2188 active fishing licenses and has grown into the province’s most economically valuable fishery. Snow crabs are captured using conical traps consisting of a mild carbon steel frame, hard plastic entry funnel and a jacket of polyethylene netting. The frames of these traps corrode over time, which is expedited by being deployed in marine environments and stored on land near the ocean when not in use. As a result, there is interest within the community to increase the longevity of crab traps. One solution is to galvanize the steel frames prior to installing the funnel and netting. However, before harvesters transition to galvanized traps, two questions must be answered. Will the use of galvanized steel negatively impact catch rates? Will the life cycle of a crab trap be extended sufficiently to justify the additional cost of galvanizing? This study employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate the catch of legal-sized male crabs (CPUE) during the commercial fishery as a function of three trap frame treatments (old traditional, new traditional and new galvanized). We also assessed the economic viability of galvanizing trap frames by evaluating the life cycle cost (LCC) of traditional and galvanized traps to the harvester. The LCC was calculated over a range of inflation (0–6%) and discount (3–20%) rates. Our results found no significant difference in CPUE between new traps (traditional vs. galvanized) and concluded that except during instances of very high discount rates (12.9–19.9%), it is economically favourable to galvanize crab trap frames.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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