MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061506159

Preliminary results on seabed litter distribution on Flemish Cap (Div. 3M), Flemish Pass (Div. 3L) and Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Divs. 3NO).

2024· article· en· W7061506159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundfishLitterSeabedTrawlingDemersal zoneMarine debrisBycatchFishing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed seabed litter densities in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA; Divs. 3LMNO) using six years of demersal trawling data from the EU-Spain/Portugal groundfish surveys (period 2018–2023). This study provides a preliminary updated information and a baseline information on seabed litter for Div. 3L and Divs. 3MNO, respectively. A total of 1936 valid bottom trawl hauls were analysed (40- 1481 m depth). Litter was found in 16.7% of the valid hauls, with mean densities of 6.7±18.5 items km–2 and 7.7±121.5 kg km-2. Fisheries was found to be the main source of seabed litter, and 41.8% of the hauls with litter presence showed litter included in the fisheries-related litter group category. Whereas in most cases the fisheries-related litter was composed of small fragments of rope, in other cases it was composed of entire fishing gears (e.g., pots from fisheries not managed by NAFO). Plastic, metal and other anthropogenic litter were the next most abundant group categories, accounting for 63.6%, 12.9% and 8.3% of the total seabed litter items recorded, respectively. The results from this study will provide information on the distribution of seabed litter in Divs. 3LMNO and will help to improve the current protocol for collecting seabed litter data and to implement best practices in groundfish surveys conducted in the 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC))Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207