MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992030459 · doi:10.1080/00288330.2005.9517343

Impact of minimum legal size increases on egg‐per‐recruit production, size structure, and ovigerous females in the American lobster ( <i>Homarus americanus</i> ) population off the Magdalen Islands (Quebec, Canada): A case study

2005· article· en· W1992030459 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louise Gendron

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterCarapaceFisheryFishingBiologyPopulationEcologyCrustaceanDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the mid 1990s, American lobster ( Homarus americanus ) from Canadian waters was considered overfished based on estimated levels of egg‐per‐recruit production (EPR). In 1997, the Department of Fisheries Oceans responded by adopting a goal of doubling the level of EPR from its 1996 level. In the Magdalen Islands (Quebec), results from a simulation model indicated that doubling EPR could be reached by increasing the minimum legal size (MLS) from 76 mm to 83 mm carapace length. This was done at a pace of 1 mm per year from 1997 to 2003. Following the increase of MLS, the size structure, mean size, and the abundance of ovigerous females improved significantly in the catches. However, levels of fishing effort are still very high. This could cause undesirable effects such as altering sex ratios and size structure of males, which could lead to sperm limitation, and reducing the contribution of multiple spawners to egg production, which could become an issue if egg quality is important. Consideration of these issues leads to the recommendation of a multidimensional approach to lobster conservation.

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)0.001
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207