MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1959250313 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0458

Large pelagic predators could jeopardize the recovery of endangered Atlantic salmon

2014· article· en· W1959250313 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gilles L. Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryPelagic zonePredationThunnusSalmoBayEndangered speciesFishingThreatened speciesTunaPopulationBiologyApex predatorHabitatEcologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term population viability of Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is threatened by high levels of marine mortality during migration. Pop-up satellite archival tags on repeat spawners provide direct evidence of extensive natural mortality of migrating salmon in coastal zones attributed to predation by large pelagic fish and no evidence of fishing mortality. Ingested tags show that salmon with a coastal migration are eaten by porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) inside the Bay of Fundy, whereas distant migrants are consumed by Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and other apex predators along the Scotian Shelf. Mortality is clustered in a few zones because of similar predator–prey habitat preferences and overlapping migration paths. The extent of predation in salmon populations with different migration strategies can account for observed decline rates in neighbouring populations with different life histories. The impact on endangered salmon populations that rely on multiple repeat spawners for population stability may be sufficient to hamper ongoing recovery efforts.

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)0.003
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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