MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994358572 · doi:10.1139/f01-073

Testing assumptions of otolith radiometric aging with two long-lived fishes from the northern Gulf of Mexico

2001· article· en· W1994358572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meredith Baker, Charles A. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLouisiana State University
KeywordsOtolithRadiometric datingFisheryOceanographyDrumFish <Actinopterygii>GeographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyPaleontologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we evaluate the assumptions for estimating ages with radiometric and elemental analyses of otoliths of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) from the northern Gulf of Mexico. In whole otoliths of both red snapper and red drum, 226Ra activity was inversely correlated with the otolith mass increase with age, validating the assumption that 226Ra accumulation in otoliths occurs at a rate proportional to that of Ca. 222Rn emanation from otoliths decreased as otolith mass increased. 222Rn loss occurred in all red snapper otolith samples ([Formula: see text]4.1%) and, to a lesser extent, in red drum otolith samples ([Formula: see text]0.6%) and decreased with increasing size (age) of the otolith. For red drum, the assumption that the initial activity ratio of 210Po to 226Ra in otoliths is essentially zero was indirectly validated with elemental analyses of Pb and Ba. Radiometric age estimation of shallow-water fishes from the northern Gulf of Mexico holds great promise, considering that 226Ra activities observed in this study are some of the highest recorded to date for species to which the 210Pb/226Ra dating technique has been applied.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207