Stock structure of yellowtail flounder off the northeastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interdisciplinary study incorporating geographic patterns of abundance, geographic variation in growth and maturity, morphometry, and genetics suggests that yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea on the principal U.S. fishing grounds should be managed as separate stocks despite genetic homogeneity. Significantly different patterns of abundance and biomass over time suggest two harvest stocks of yellowtail flounder with a boundary on southwest Georges Bank. Geographic patterns of size and proportion mature at age indicate two phenotypic stocks of yellowtail flounder, with a boundary on northern Georges Bank. With respect to current U.S. management units, southern New England yellowtail form a separate harvest stock than Georges Bank yellowtail, and Cape Cod yellowtail are a separate phenotypic stock than those on Georges Bank or off southern New England. However, no apparent differences between samples from southern New England and Mid Atlantic, or between samples from Cape Cod and Gulf of Maine were found in any of the analyses. Morphometric analysis showed sexual dimorphism and significant difference between yellowtail from U.S. waters and those sampled off Newfoundland, but little morphometric variation among samples from U.S. areas. Collaborative genetic analysis also found little variation among U.S. samples. Yellowtail flounder resources off the U.S. appear to be a single genetic stock, but significant variation in life history attributes and different patterns of abundance over time suggest that yellowtail flounder off the northeastern U.S. should be managed as three stocks: Cape Cod-Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and southern New England-Mid Atlantic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".