Recreational angler perceptions of the proper anatomical region to vent barotraumatized reef fish in the U.S. South Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective Approaches to reduce discard mortality in fisheries that target physoclistous reef fishes in deep water are a priority. Venting is one approach, but we lack information on whether stakeholders know of this approach and, if so, whether they know how to use these tools properly. Our goal was to understand current recreational angler familiarity with the venting technique and their knowledge of proper versus improper anatomical regions for venting. Methods During 2023–2025, we conducted a survey of marine recreational anglers fishing aboard a North Carolina-based headboat targeting physoclistous reef fish from seafloor habitats in depths of about 25–50 m. Anglers were provided with lateral and ventral sketches of a popular Atlantic reef species (Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus) experiencing barotrauma and were surveyed for their experience with venting. Respondents who had previously heard of venting were asked to mark a single location where they believed a fish should be vented, regardless of whether they had ever vented a fish before. Results Among all respondents, 59% had not heard of venting. Of anglers who had heard of venting (but inclusive of those who had applied venting and those who had not), 60% chose the proper region (laterally and immediately behind the pectoral fin) or likely proper region (abdomen). In contrast, improper venting regions, which included the everted stomach, dorsal musculature, and anus, were selected by 40% of respondents. Conclusions We concluded that there is a widespread lack of knowledge among marine recreational anglers about how to properly vent fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".