MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133281464

Science response: 2022 stock status update of redfish in unit 3

2023· other· en· W7133281464 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pêches et Océans Canada

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsGroundfishCatch per unit effortStock (firearms)FishingUnit (ring theory)Fish stock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 10,000 metric tonnes (t) Total Allowable Catch (TAC) was implemented for Unit 3 Redfish (4X+ 4Wdehkl) in 1993 based on the 1991 TAC for the previous management unit (North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Subarea 4VWX), prorated by historical (1981–1990) catches in the Statistical Unit Areas which comprise Unit 3 (Atkinson and Power 1991). This TAC was maintained from 1993–1998 based on conclusions from a series of stock status reports which indicated that stock conditions were not expected to decline in coming years (Branton and Halliday 1994, Branton 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998). In 1999, the TAC was reduced to 9,450 t, followed by a reduction to 9,000 t in 2000 due to lower catch rates in 4W and a shift in fishing effort from 4W to 4X (Branton 1999). The TAC was further reduced to 8,000 t in 2022. Conservation measures for Unit 3 Redfish currently include protocols for protecting small fish below the minimum size of 22 cm fork length (FL) (i.e., closure areas, small fish amounts not to exceed 15% of catch/trip), 100% dockside monitoring and electronic vessel monitoring (VMS), mandatory hail out and hail in, and a target level of 10–20% at-sea observer coverage. Information on the status of Unit 3 Redfish (i.e., distribution, abundance, biomass) from 1999–2002 was provided through a series of Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Documents that included a synopsis of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Summer Research Vessel (RV) Survey trends back to 1970 for selected groundfish stocks (e.g., Branton and Black 2002). Since 2009, the status of Unit 3 Redfish has been updated through a series of CSAS Science Responses (e.g., DFO 2017a), based on RV survey trends in biomass and abundance. Following the development of biological reference points consistent with the precautionary approach (DFO 2012), the DFO Summer RV Survey Trends Science Responses from 2014 to 2019 have included plots of the mature biomass index for redfish > 22 cm FL relative to the Upper Stock Reference (USR; 80% of Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield [Bmsy] proxy) and the Limit Reference Point (LRP; 40% of Bmsy proxy) (DFO 2020). In 2015, a zonal peer review of the assessment framework for Units 1–3 Redfish (DFO 2017b) included a detailed review of Unit 3 Redfish stock status; however, this information has not yet been published, and as a result, there has been no new information available on the fishery for several years. In 2018, DFO Resource Management asked Science to review biological and fishery information on Unit 3 Redfish, to evaluate the status of the stock relative to adopted reference points (DFO 2012), and report on bycatch of non-target species in the Unit 3 Redfish Fishery (DFO 2019). A science response was provided in 2020 (DFO 2021) but not in 2021 as no new RV survey data were available This science response provides a stock status update of Unit 3 Redfish using the most up to date landings and RV survey data. This Science Response Report results from the regional peer review of December 6–7, 2022, on the Update of Stock Status for Unit 3 Redfish.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.015

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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