MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1833527735 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0099

Cannibals by night? In situ video monitoring reveals diel shifts in inter- and intra-specific predation on the American lobster

2013· article· en· W1833527735 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noah G. Oppenheim, Richard A. Wahle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmerican lobsterHomarusPredationDiel vertical migrationFisheryGroundfishNocturnalCannibalismPopulationBiologyGuildEcologyCrustaceanHabitatFisheries managementFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted tethering experiments in the field to evaluate day–night differences in the identity and frequency of predators encountered by the American lobster (Homarus americanus) in coastal Maine, USA. Separate daytime and nighttime deployments were conducted using tethered lobsters under infrared-illuminated video surveillance. Supplemental tethering trials without video surveillance provided further quantitative information on diel and size-specific predation patterns. We found crabs to be the most common predators during the day, whereas lobsters prevailed at night. Contrary to expectations, we measured higher predation rates at night than during the day, suggesting that nocturnal interactions with conspecifics may play a more important role in lobster population regulation than previously thought when lobster population densities are high and large predatory fish are rare. As large predatory groundfish have been depleted in the Gulf of Maine, lobster populations have reached historic highs, making density-dependent feedbacks such as cannibalism more likely.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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