MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395675006 · doi:10.3390/fishes9050154

Hauling Snow Crab Traps in Eastern Canada: A Study Documenting Tension in Ropes

2024· article· en· W4395675006 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Genevieve Peck, Tomás Araya-Schmidt, Paul D. Winger

Bibliographic record

VenueFishes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsSnowFisheryTension (geology)Environmental scienceGeographyMeteorologyBiologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entanglement in commercial fishing gear is one of the main factors inhibiting the recovery of critically endangered North Atlantic right whales. Installing low-breaking-strength (LBS) components in the buoy lines and main lines of stationary fishing gear may be a viable solution for some fisheries. But is it an effective solution for deep-water trap fisheries? This study quantified in-line rope tensions observed during fishing operations for snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. We conducted a controlled fishing experiment in which we documented the loads experienced while hauling fleets of traps. The results showed that several factors contributed to the loads observed, including the components of the traps, the presence of crabs, and environmental conditions such as wind direction and wave height. According to the statistical models, the maximum tension from the estimated marginal means was 477.53 kgf in the buoy line and 987.99 kgf in the main line for the baited hauls, which exceeds the safe working load (154 kgf) of the proposed low-breaking-strength components. Our results suggest that LBS components are not a viable solution for this deep-water fishery.

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)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFishesSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207