MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002248215 · doi:10.1139/f06-130

The fisheries management implications of maternal-age-dependent larval survival

2006· article· en· W2002248215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael R. O’Farrell, Louis W. Botsford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries Service
KeywordsBiologyFishingReproductionSebastesLarvaFisheryFisheries managementPopulationDensity dependenceMortality rateLongevityEcologyZoologyDemographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common goal of conventional fisheries management is to maintain fishing mortality at a rate that ensures an adequate level of lifetime egg production (LEP) for population sustainability. However, larvae from young spawners can experience higher mortality rates than larvae of older spawners, reducing the effect of egg production by young females (hereafter, maternal age effects). This reduction leads to an error in LEP that can be accounted for by reducing the fishing mortality rate, but raises the question of the magnitude of these errors if they are present but not accounted for. Calculations using parameters from a typical long-lived fish demonstrated that maternal age effects resulted in large errors in estimates of lifetime reproduction when there was a large contrast in the larval mortality rate extending over the reproductive life span. Errors were small when maternal age effects reduced the reproductive potential of only the very youngest spawners, at ages when a small fraction of females are mature. A specific example using the empirically derived maternal age effect for black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) indicated that errors in traditional management would be small for this species.

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)0.004
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207