MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404610815 · doi:10.1111/fme.12758

Spatiotemporal Hotspots of Juvenile Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna Catches Under Drifting Fish‐Aggregating Devices in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean to Define Moratorium Strata

2024· article· en· W4404610815 on OpenAlexaff
S. Akia, Loreleï Guéry, P.J. Pascual-Alayón, Daniel Gaertner

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Management and Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYellowfin tunaJuvenileFisheryGeographyScombridaeFish <Actinopterygii>TunaJuvenile fishOceanographyBiologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT To reduce catches of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna, while maintaining skipjack catches under drifting fish aggregating devices (dFAD), we analyzed spatiotemporal distributions of dFAD catches by European purse seiners in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean during 1996–2019. To detect hotspots of juvenile dFAD catches, we: identified periods of maximum abundance using a seasonal sub‐series diagram; normalized monthly FAD catches per unit effort; and used emerging hotspots analysis on spatiotemporal density. Two main spatiotemporal strata were identified in the Guinean Gulf, which could be used to establish moratoria on dFAD fishing. These spatiotemporal strata differed from the existing ICCAT moratorium, which spanned a larger part of the African coast. Our findings also indicated that time‐area closures of dFAD‐fishing lasting 3–4 months in smaller areas could be more effective than the current dFAD moratorium to reduce unwanted bycatch in the Eastern Atlantic region. The two metrics we developed for comparison provided clear and measurable evidence that demonstrated how strategic and data‐informed moratoriums can lead to substantial improvements in conservation.

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)0.000
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries Management and EcologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207