ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DROP CHAIN FOOTGEARAT REDUCING BOTTOM CONTACT IN THE NEWFOUNDLAND ANDLABRADOR SHRIMP TRAWL FISHERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effectiveness of a reduced seabed impact footgear versus a traditional rockhopper footgear on identical bottom trawls targeting northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The experimental trawl used in this study was designed to be low seabed impact through the reduction of contact area of the footgear by replacing traditional heavy rockhopper footgear with only a few drop chains lightly in contact with the seabed (i.e., drop chain footgear). Two variants of the experimental drop chain footgear (9-drop chain and 5-drop chain) were designed, evaluated in a flume tank to estimate contact area with the seabed, and then briefly tested at sea for engineering performance and catchability. Results from the flume tank tests were encouraging, demonstrating that the traditional and experimental trawls were similar in performance, but with the experimental drop chain footgears producing substantial reductions in the predicted contact area with the seabed. Comparative commercial fishing trials were then subsequently made with a total of five pairs of tows (10 tows) for the 9-drop chain and six pairs of tows (12 tows) for the 5-drop chain. Though only briefly tested at sea, the results revealed that the drop chain footgears were promising in both engineering and catch performance. Underwater video observations demonstrated that the drop chain trawling system, with greatly reduced bottom contact on the seabed, could help reduce potential disturbance of marine ecosystems, in particular minimizing encounters with snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".