MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558189440 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i4.184

Body Size Distribution and Frequency of Anthropogenic Injuries of Bluntnose Sixgill Sharks, <em>Hexanchus griseus</em>, at Flora Islets, British Columbia

2005· article· en· W1558189440 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert L. Dunbrack, Robert Zielinski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsPopulationBiologyFisheryReefEcologyDemersal zoneMatingFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) is a widely distributed demersal species whose population biology is poorly understood. Although H. griseus is normally found in deep continental slope waters, individuals from a population in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, make unexpected diurnal movements onto a shallow reef (Flora Islets) between June and August. This shallow water activity allowed in situ length measurements to be made on 35 free-swimming Bluntnose Sixgill Sharks using stereo videography. The measured sharks were all large juveniles and sub-adults, although smaller juveniles and pregnant females are known to occur in deeper adjacent waters. The restricted size distribution at Flora Islets may arise because small juveniles avoid contact with larger conspecifics and mating takes place offshore. All measured sharks were individually identified by unique scar patterns. In 13 of 35 sharks these scars were consistent with injuries expected from hooking and entanglement by commercial fishing gear.

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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207