MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1995674929 · doi:10.1139/f00-234

The drift-retention dichotomy on Browns Bank: a model study of interannual variability

2000· article· en· W1995674929 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Charles G. Hannah, Jennifer A. Shore, John W. Loder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsHaddockGadusForcing (mathematics)BayEnvironmental scienceGadidaeOcean currentAtlantic codOceanographyClimatologyGeologyBiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interannual variability in drift and retention in the Browns Bank region in spring was investigated by tracking particles in numerical-model estimates of the seasonal mean circulation and monthly mean flow anomalies computed using wind and sea-level data. The circulation changes associated with the variable forcing tend to reinforce either drift to the Bay of Fundy or retention in the vicinity of Browns Bank. Regular spring spawning can lead to widely different distributions of 1-month-old larvae, supporting the concept of a drift-retention dichotomy for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) larvae in the region. Analysis of interannual variability indicates that retention has bounded properties that must be accounted for when relating retention variability to forcing indices. As well, the nonlinearities associated with calculating particle trajectories from velocity fields contribute about 10% of the variance in retention indices. Comparison with biologically based indices of haddock survival indicates that circulation variability alone is not the dominant influence on survival to ages 1 and 2 years. However, it can be expected to have a significant influence in conjunction with biological factors such as the location and timing of peak spawning and the variable vertical position of eggs and larvae.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→