MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1801272460 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0511

Movements and oceanographic associations of bigeye tuna (<i>Thunnus obesus</i>) in the Northwest Atlantic

2014· article· en· W1801272460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chi Hin Lam, Benjamin Galuardi, Molly E. Lutcavage

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThunnusFish measurementOceanographyFisheryTunaPelagic zoneScombridaeGulf StreamGeographyFisheries managementEnvironmental scienceFishingBiologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the lack of fisheries-independent information for Atlantic bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), we released 21 adults (131 ± 12 cm curved fork length) between 2008 and 2010 in the Sargasso Sea and Northwest Atlantic. Data from nine tags (range: 1–292 days; mean: 89 days) revealed (i) pronounced north–south movements in pelagic waters between areas including Georges Bank, Mid- and South Atlantic Bight, Caribbean Sea, and Brazilian shelf, (ii) a lack of east–west exchange, and (iii) a high-use area in the Hatteras Plain, centered southwest of Bermuda. Bigeye tuna occupied water masses of 2.7–28.2 °C and depths of 0–1280 m, with deeper depths in the daytime (daily mean ± standard deviation: 196 ± 92 m) than at nighttime (45 ± 29 m). Even though bigeye tuna are assumed to forage on the deep scattered layer during the day, generalized additive mixed models did not identify the deep scattered layer as an important predictor of daytime swimming depth. Model results highlight the importance of geographic location in influencing habitat utilization, and thus suggest the need for fisheries-independent monitoring in high-catch areas, such as the central and equatorial 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 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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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