Evaluation of a Topless Bottom Trawl Design with a 160 foot Headrope and Two Restrictor Lines for Fish Capture in the Summer Flounder Fishery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
contained herein." 1 Previous conservation engineering experiments using a turtle excluder device (TED) in the summer flounder fishery resulted in a significant loss of target species, about 35 % on average. The evaluation of a 106-foot headrope topless trawl in the summer flounder fisheries had no significant loss of target species, but was ineffective at reducing sea turtle bycatch. A 160-foot headrope was effective at reducing sea turtle catch, but was then tested in the summer flounder fishery for target catch retention and had a significant loss of target species, ranging from 51-74 % on average. In an effort to reduce catch loss, this 160-foot headrope net was evaluated at the flume tank at the Marine Institute in St. John’s, Newfoundland and was reconfigured with two restrictor lines. The 160-foot topless trawl with 30 floats and two restrictor lines was tested in the summer flounder fishery in the summer of 2013 to assess its ability to catch finish. The purpose of this report is to present the methodology used, data collected, and a basic analysis on the catch efficiency of the 160 foot headrope topless trawl design compared to a traditional trawl design. The results of this evaluation show that the 160 foot headrope topless trawl with restrictor lines significantly reduced the catch of summer flounder but with the proper float arrangement, the loss of target species was reduced to a 22.7 % loss when compared to a traditional trawl.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".