MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007521129 · doi:10.1139/f07-044

Does male-only fishing influence reproductive success of the female spiny king crab, <i>Paralithodes brevipes</i>?

2007· article· en· W2007521129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taku Sato, Masakazu Ashidate, Tadao Jinbo, Seiji Goshima

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyReproductive successHuman fertilizationSpermReproductive biologyFishingSemelparity and iteroparityReproductive seasonZoologyMatingSperm competitionSeasonal breederReproductionEcologyFisheryDemographyPopulationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male-only fishing for spiny king crab (Paralithodes brevipes) has likely impaired the reproductive success of the stock by decreasing the availability of sperm and (or) male mates. The reproductive success of females in fished populations in 2003 and 2004 was estimated based on female reproductive potential determined in laboratory experiments. Some females had no or partial clutches and showed a low fertilization rate. As female size decreased, the fertilization rate decreased and their clutches became small. These results suggest that mating was impaired by sperm limitation, because risk of sperm limitation increases throughout the reproductive season in fished populations, and smaller females tend to mate later in the reproductive season than larger females of this species. We compared the reproductive success between these years with different fishing pressures. In 2003, the total fishing pressure was high, therefore causing decreases in availability of sperm and males. This likely resulted in the reproductive success of females being lower in 2003 than in 2004.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207