MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1838422729 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2012-0494

Spatial and temporal microsatellite variation in spawning Atlantic cod,<i>Gadus morhua</i>, around Iceland

2013· article· en· W1838422729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guðni Magnús Eiríksson, Einar Árnason

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHáskóli Íslands
KeywordsGadusAtlantic codMicrosatelliteSignificant differenceGenetic variationBiologyGenetic variabilityGeographyFisheryAlleleZoologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneticsStatisticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study suggests that the observed genetic difference between Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, off the south and the north coast of Iceland may be caused by natural selection affecting genetic variation at a microsatellite loci (Gmo34). When disregarding this locus from the analysis, no genetic difference was observed between northern and southern Iceland. The methods applied here were very sensitive, and differences as small as FST= 0.0005 are unlikely to go unnoticed. The difference between cod off the south and the north coast of Iceland is thus likely to be smaller than that. Such a small difference is negligible and is not likely to have any biological meaning. Genetic drift was detected by allele frequency comparison among different cohorts (FST= 0.0007, P = 0.0209). A small but significant difference was observed among allele frequency for cod grouped by depth at the south coast of Iceland (FST= 0.0017, P = 0.0002). This difference is very subtle and needs to be interpreted with caution.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→