MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415285655 · doi:10.1007/s44288-025-00284-6

The impact of tropical cyclones on fishing boats from a global perspective

2025· article· en· W4415285655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miloud Lacheheb

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Geoscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingTropical cycloneTropical cyclone rainfall forecastingIndian oceanTropical cyclone scalesChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study quantifies the impact of tropical cyclones on fishing boat activity using satellite imagery and tropical cyclone data from 2012 to 2023 across 42 countries. Kernel density estimation identifies key fishing grounds, and impacts are assessed through Generalized Linear Mixed Models. The results reveal significant regional variation in tropical cyclone impacts on fishing activities, with wind speed effects ranging from − 1.17% to + 0.50% change in boat numbers per knot increase. Negative impacts on fishing grounds were mostly in Southeast Asian waters, particularly Indonesia (− 1.22%), the Philippines (− 0.82%), and Myanmar (-0.58%), while positive effects were observed in some fishing grounds of China (+ 0.45%) and Canada (+ 0.45%). Future projections based on predicted cyclone intensification suggest that the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu will experience the highest negative outcomes (− 1.96% and − 1.93%, respectively). The North and South Indian Oceans and the Southwest Pacific reveal overall negative effects across all countries. While North Atlantic countries show consistent positive impact, Northwest countries show mixed impacts. Between 2012 and 2023, countries like Japan, China, and the Philippines recorded the highest total number of TC-affected days, with 205, 188, and 129 days, respectively, highlighting the prolonged disruptions to fishing activities in the Northwest Pacific region.

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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover GeoscienceSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207