Developing Baltic cod recruitment models. II. Incorporation of environmental variability and species interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate whether a process-oriented approach based on the results of field, laboratory, and modelling studies can be used to develop a stockenvironmentrecruitment model for Central Baltic cod (Gadus morhua). Based on exploratory statistical analysis, significant variables influencing survival of early life stages and varying systematically among spawning sites were incorporated into stockrecruitment models, first for major cod spawning sites and then combined for the entire Central Baltic. Variables identified included potential egg production by the spawning stock, abiotic conditions affecting survival of eggs, predation by clupeids on eggs, larval transport, and cannibalism. Results showed that recruitment in the most important spawning area, the Bornholm Basin, during 19761995 was related to egg production; however, other factors affecting survival of the eggs (oxygen conditions, predation) were also significant and when incorporated explained 69% of the variation in 0-group recruitment. In other spawning areas, variable hydrographic conditions did not allow for regular successful egg development. Hence, relatively simple models proved sufficient to predict recruitment of 0-group cod in these areas, suggesting that key biotic and abiotic processes can be successfully incorporated into recruitment models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".