MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1869367274 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0033

Estimating the mortality caused by great cormorant predation on fish stocks: pikeperch in the Archipelago Sea, northern Baltic Sea, as an example

2015· article· en· W1869367274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Outi Heikinheimo, Pekka Rusanen, Katja Korhonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCormorantPredationArchipelagoFisheryBiologyPerchFish mortalityFish stockEcologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of the mortality rates caused by cormorants are needed to assess the impact on fish stock dynamics and fisheries. In this study, we calculated the annual instantaneous mortality caused by great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis) on young pikeperch (Sander lucioperca), using data from Archipelago Sea, southwestern coast of Finland. The pikeperch are vulnerable to cormorant predation mainly at the ages 2–4. The annual instantaneous mortality caused by cormorants was between 0.04 and 0.13, and the estimated effect on the pikeperch stock size at recruitment to the fishery ranged from 4% to 23%, respectively. The average annual cormorant-induced mortality accounted for 5%–34% of the total mortality in these age groups. The sensitivity analyses proved that the rates of mortality from other sources largely affect the estimated mortality from cormorant predation. In cases with strong fluctuations in the abundance of the prey fish stocks, ignoring the size and density dependence of the natural mortality may lead to overestimation of the importance of cormorants as competitors of fisheries.

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)0.001
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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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