MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967345244 · doi:10.5061/dryad.dr7sqvb7t

The global footprint of drifting Fish Aggregating Devices

2025· dataset· en· W6967345244 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingTunaFootprintMarine pollutionEcological footprintMarine lifeFish <Actinopterygii>Fishing industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuna are among the world’s most valuable marine life and have long been exploited by industrial fisheries. Increasingly, tuna fishing companies have shifted from targeting free-swimming fish to using drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs): satellite-tracked rafts that move with currents while accumulating fish below. Here we estimate the global footprint of these devices and track 30 years of progress to mitigate impacts. We estimate 1.41 million dFAD buoys were released between 2007-2021, drifting across at least 134 million km2, or 37% of Earth’s ocean surface. Lost dFADs have stranded in 104 maritime regions, contributing to coastal pollution and damaging sensitive habitats. Regulatory progress has been made to address data quality, entanglement, and pollution, but concerns over unregulated dFAD deployments, unsustainable bycatch, and weak industry accountability persist. Our results demonstrate that the cumulative environmental footprint of dFADs reaches far beyond tuna fishing grounds and remains inadequately mitigated at the global scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207