Analyzing recreational fishing effort—gender differences and the impact of Covid-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational fishing is an important economic driver and provides multiple social benefits. To predict fishing activity, identifying variables related to variation, such as gender or Covid-19, is helpful. We conducted a Canada-wide email survey of users of an online fishing platform and analyzed responses focusing on gender, the impact of Covid-19, and variables directly related to fishing effort. Genders (90% men and 10% women) significantly differed in demographics, socioeconomic status, and fishing skills but showed similar fishing preferences, fishing effort in terms of trip frequency, and travel distance. Covid-19 altered trip frequency for almost half of fishers, with changes varying by gender and activity level. A Bayesian network revealed travel distance as the main determinant of trip frequency, negatively impacting fishing activity for 61% of fishers, with fishing expertise also playing a role. The results suggest that among active fishers, socio-economic differences between genders do not drive fishing effort, but responses to Covid-19 were gender-specific. Recognizing these patterns is critical for equitable policy-making and accurate socio-ecological models, thereby improving resource management and sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".