MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968568295 · doi:10.1139/f00-103

Use of fish production per unit biomass ratios for measuring the productive capacity of fish habitats

2000· article· en· W1968568295 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert G. Randall, Charles K. Minns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllometryBiomass (ecology)ProductivityAnimal scienceBiologyHabitatPopulationEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species-specific production rate per unit biomass (P/B, per year) ratios were calculated for 79 freshwater fish species of eastern Canada. P/B (per year) ratios were calculated using two methods, which were based on allometry with fish weight-at-maturity and life expectancy, respectively. P/B (per year) values obtained by the two methods were significantly correlated, as expected from life history theory, since the two predictors (longevity, size-at-maturity) were themselves correlated. Species-specific P/B (per year) ratios were also significantly correlated with field observations of P/B from published sources. The estimation of P/B based on allometry with fish size is recommended because of its utility; the predictive equation is P/B (per year) = 2.64Wmat-0.35, where Wmat is weight-at-maturity. Both the coefficient 2.64 and the exponent -0.35 of this equation are provisional and require further validation from field studies of fish production. More accurate estimates of P/B are possible if population-specific information on size-at-maturity or mean size is known. The product of average fish biomass and estimated P/B coefficients (habitat productivity index (HPI) = B × P/B) is a proposed measure of habitat productive capacity.

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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations105
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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