MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133273852

Review of the 2021 snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Areas 12, 12E, 12F and 19)

2022· other· en· W7133273852 on OpenAlexaff
T. Surette, R. Allain, J-F. Landry, M. Moriyasu

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingBycatchNoticeSnowWhale
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The review of the 2021 snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (sGSL; Areas 12, 12E, 12 F and 19) is presented. Total landings in the sGSL in 2021 were 24,479 t out of a revised quota of 24,125 t. The allowable quota in the notice to harvesters was 23,810 t. For Area 12 harvesters, landings were 20,842 t (revised quota of 20,402 t). The mean catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) from logbooks increased in 2021 (57.4 kg per trap hauled (kg/th)) compared to 2020 (44.1 kg/th). In Areas 12E and 12F, landings were 296 t (revised quota of 288 t) and 1,100 t (revised quota of 1,192 t), respectively. Due to North Atlantic Right whale closures in Areas 12E and F, approximately 24.6% (73 t) and 46.2% (508 t) of the quota allocations in these Areas respectively, were fished in Area 12. In Area 12E, the mean CPUE increased in 2021 (55.7 kg/th) compared to 2020 (45.9 kg/th). In Area 12F, the mean CPUE remained high in 2021 at 59.1 kg/th, an increase compared to 2020 (45.2 kg/th). In Area 19, landings reached 2,241 t (revised quota of 2,244 t). The mean CPUE remained high in 2021 at 121.0 kg/th, an increase from 2020 (101.7 kg/th).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada→French-language works237,207→