Comparison of condition factors of skipjack tuna (<i>Katsuwonus pelamis</i>) associated or not with floating objects in an area known to be naturally enriched with logs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an area that has barely been modified by fish aggregating devices (FADs) (e.g., the Mozambique Channel, known to be naturally enriched with logs, with few FADs), we found that the condition of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) associated with floating objects was lower than those in free-swimming schools. As this result was found in an area that mimics the environmental state prior to the use of FADs, it questions the interpretation of previous studies where such a difference has been interpreted to reflect the impact of extensive FAD deployment on tunas. It is possible that before the use of FADs, tunas associated with logs were also in poorer condition than tunas in free-swimming schools. Our results suggest that the evolutionary reason for which tunas associated with floating objects might not relate to short-term trophic benefit, and alternative hypotheses (e.g., the meeting point hypothesis) are discussed to explain this result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".