MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969254390 · doi:10.1577/c08-001.1

Synchrony of Marine Fish Catches and Climate and Ocean Regime Shifts in the North Pacific Ocean

2009· article· en· W1969254390 on OpenAlexaff
Donald J. Noakes, Richard J. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Coastal Fisheries · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPacific decadal oscillationPacific oceanClimate changeRegime shiftMarine fishGeographyPopulationFisheryOceanographyFish <Actinopterygii>Period (music)Environmental scienceClimatologyBiologyEcologyGeologyDemographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Catches of 19 marine fish species from the eastern and western portions of the North Pacific Ocean during 1970–2004 were examined to determine whether there was synchrony in their responses to the generally accepted climate regime shifts that occurred during that period. Catches for these species represented approximately 55% of the total fish catch in the North Pacific in the 1990s. Five distinct groups were apparent in the data, and each group exhibited a different response to the climate regime shifts of 1977, 1989, and 1998. Some species appeared to have responded only to the regime shift in 1977, others responded only to the shift in 1989, and a few species responded to both. The trends in the time series of catches for these five groups were not random, and shifts in catch generally coincided with regime shifts as identified by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other indices of climate change. Although this study examined the relationship of fisheries to trends in climate, there is an obvious linkage to the population dynamics of a particular species. Understanding how climate affects these linkages may help improve our ability to reliably forecast population and fishery trends in the future.

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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Coastal FisheriesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207