MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1734062522 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0227

Seasonal distribution, abundance, and growth of larval capelin (<i>Mallotus villosus</i>) and the role of the Lower Estuary (Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada) as a nursery area

2013· article· en· W1734062522 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick Ouellet, Alice Olga Victoria Bui, Diane Lavoie, Joël Chassé, Nicolas Lambert, Nadia Ménard, Pascal Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of VictoriaUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapelinEstuaryMallotusBiologyFisheryLarvaPelagic zonePopulationHatchingAbundance (ecology)EcologyOceanographyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capelin (Mallotus villosus) spawning in the St. Lawrence Estuary is concentrated in the Upper Estuary (UE). The northwest Gulf of St. Lawrence (NW GSL) was presented as the principal nursery for capelin originating from the estuary. In 2009 and 2010, we investigated the abundance, distribution, and size structure of capelin larvae in this system, and a particle tracking model was used to simulate larval dispersion. There was evidence of retention and larval growth in the Lower Estuary (LE), and older larvae were found in the LE by the end of summer. In October 2009, it was possible to link the cohorts of large larvae to emergence events in the UE in spring. Capelin larvae were more abundant or bigger (mean length) in the LE relative to the NW GSL in fall 2006, 2008, and 2009. We conclude that the LE is the habitat of a unit of the GSL capelin population composed of individuals that are retained in this region following hatching in the UE and that there is limited mixing with larvae originating in the NW GSL.

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)0.000
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 score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→