MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011071833 · doi:10.2960/j.v37.m560

The impact of condition on reproduction in Flemish Cap Cod

2006· article· en· W2011071833 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Morgan, George R. Lilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlemishReproductionEnvironmental scienceFisheryBusinessGeographyBiologyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of fish condition on reproduction have not been examined previously for Flemish Cap cod. It is known that a substantial portion of female cod skipped spawning during the late 1970s and 1980s (Walsh et al., MS 1986) and it was speculated that this might be as a result of poor condition. The purpose of this paper was to determine if there is a relationship between condition and maturity (being an adult) in Flemish Cap cod, both male and female, and to determine if there was a relationship between condition and the probability of spawning in female cod. There was no significant effect of relative body condition (K r ) on the probability of being an adult for either male or female cod. For males there was also no significant effect of relative liver condition (LK r ) on the probability of being an adult. For female cod there was a significant effect of LK r on the probability of being an adult, after accounting for the effects of age and length. However, LK r accounted for only a small portion of the deviance (1%) compared to the deviance accounted for by the combined effects of age and length (69%). There was no significant effect of K r on the probability of spawning in adult females, however there was a significant impact of LK r with females with higher LK r having a greater probability of spawning.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207