MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998365550 · doi:10.1080/00028487.2011.567843

Microsatellite Identification of Canadian Sockeye Salmon Rearing in the Bering Sea

2011· article· en· W1998365550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry D. Beacham, John R. Candy, Erin Joanna Porszt, Shunpei Sato, Shigehiko Urawa

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusFisheryBayStock (firearms)InletGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>OceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The stock composition of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka caught in the central Bering Sea in the summer of 2009 was estimated to evaluate migration patterns of salmon of Canadian origin, which have not been demonstrated previously to rear in the Bering Sea. The variation at 14 microsatellites was analyzed for 450 immature sockeye salmon, and a baseline of 387 populations from Japan, Russia, Alaska, Canada, and Washington State was used to determine the stock composition of the fish sampled. Sockeye salmon originating from Alaska were the most abundant in the catch, comprising 86.0% of all sockeye salmon caught, the catch being dominated by sockeye salmon of Bristol Bay origin. Russian‐origin sockeye salmon accounted for 10.2% of the catch, while Canadian‐origin sockeye salmon accounted for 3.8% of the catch. Salmon from Canada were estimated to originate from the Fraser River, Rivers Inlet (Owikeno Lake), the Skeena River (Babine Lake), the Stikine River, and the Alsek River, British Columbia. These results indicate that the central Bering Sea provides a summer rearing area for some Canadian sockeye salmon.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207