MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898016893 · doi:10.1139/f08-144

Geolocation of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua) using hidden Markov models and behavioural switching

2008· article· en· W1898016893 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
MW Pedersen, David Righton, Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen, Ken H. Andersen, Henrik Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeolocationGadusAtlantic codGadidaePopulationFisheryStatisticsMatching (statistics)Computer scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When geolocating fish based on archival tag data, a realistic assessment of uncertainty is essential. Here, we describe an application of a novel Fokker–Planck-based method to geolocate Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) in the North Sea area. In this study, the geolocation relies mainly on matching tidal patterns in depth measurements when a fish spends a prolonged period of time at the seabed with a tidal database. Each day, the method provides a nonparametric probability distribution of the position of a tagged fish and therefore avoids enforcing a particular distribution, such as a Gaussian distribution. In addition to the tidal component of the geolocation, the model incoporates two behavioural states, either high or low activity, estimated directly from the depth data, that affect the diffusivity parameter of the model and improves the precision and realism of the geolocation significantly. The new method provides access to the probability distribution of the position of the fish that in turn provides a range of useful descriptive statistics, such as the path of the most probable movement. We compare the method with existing alternatives and discuss its potential in making population inference from archival tag data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations131
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207