MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405534659 · doi:10.1038/s44183-024-00091-5

Drifting fish aggregating devices in the Indian ocean impacts, management, and policy implications

2024· article· en· W4405534659 on OpenAlex
Abdirahim Sheik Heile, Emilia Dyer, Roy Bealey, Megan Bailey

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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Ocean Sustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Indian oceanFisheryBusinessEnvironmental resource managementOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Indian Ocean has seen a rise in technologically advanced drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs), significantly increasing tropical tuna catches. These devices, equipped with GPS buoys and echo sounders, enhance fishing efficiency but also lead to increased juvenile tuna and bycatch species catches, ghost fishing, and abandoned gear. This study assesses the technological sophistication, and ecological impacts of dFADs in the region, particularly their role in IUU fishing when they drift into the Somali EEZ. Over a six-month period, 80-dFADs were opportunistically recovered along the four-sample coastline, with 63 being included analysis. None of the recovered dFADs complied with IOTC regulations. The study estimated the potential number of dFADs per km per annum over the Somali shelf as 1395 dFADs that could theoretically be recovered annually. This underscores substantial regulatory non-compliance and emphasizes the need for enhanced monitoring, stricter regulations, and IOTC cooperation to address the ecological and economic impacts on regional marine ecosystems and communities.

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)0.001
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.283 · 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