Enhanced data collection in the Canadian Arctic for seabird bycatch information yields highly variable results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incidental catch of seabirds (bycatch) in fisheries has been identified as a major threat to the conservation of seabird populations. Acquiring accurate, detailed data on seabird bycatch is an ongoing challenge to effective integrated ecosystem management of commercial fisheries. To collect detailed data on seabird bycatch in the Greenland halibut ( Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Walbaum, 1792) fishery in northern Canada, we applied two voluntary effort methods with industry partners that asked for additional, detailed information about the nature of the interactions between seabirds and the fishing gear than the data standardly reported in the fishery. We found that the amount of bird bycatch reported in both enhanced datasheets completed by at-sea observers (ASOs) and carcass collections yielded different results when compared to the typical seabird bycatch reporting in the fisheries ASO database. Across three years of data collection (2016, 2018, and 2019), the number of seabirds reported using the enhanced data collection methods were 0.5–11-fold the number from typical ASO database values. We then used these data to model how the differences between data sources may fluctuate across years. These large discrepancies between the methods highlight the challenges with obtaining accurate seabird bycatch data needed to implement a meaningful ecosystem approach to the management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".