MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020651263 · doi:10.1080/10641260701689022

Manipulations of Stocking Magnitude: Addressing Density-Dependence in a Juvenile Cohort of Common Snook (<i>Centropomus undecimalis)</i>

2008· article· en· W2020651263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Fisheries Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMote Marine Laboratory and AquariumNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
KeywordsStockingJuvenileBiologyFisheryHatcheryAbundance (ecology)EcologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We released hatchery-reared juvenile common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) to test the effects of augmenting age-1 abundance by 100% (high augmentation, n = 2) vs 10% (low augmentation, n = 2) in estuarine creeks of southwestern Florida. We monitored in-creek abundance of age-1 snook 1 month before releases in May 2002 to estimate wild snook density and stocking magnitude. All sampling used seining standardized for effort, gear efficiency, and depletion removal. After releases, sampling continued for 1 year. After 1 month, creeks with high augmentation showed a 126% and 74% increase in total age-1 abundance, and low augmentation creeks a 6% increase and an 18% decrease. Total age-1 abundance declined during fall in all creeks, but by winter, abundance increased again, comparable to earlier levels (132% and 67% above the pre-release estimates in high augmented creeks and 8% and 5% in creeks with low augmentation). While overall density was elevated in both high augmentation creeks, hatchery-reared snook in one creek experienced a 64–85% loss within 1 month after release; loss of hatchery-reared or wild snook was negligible in other experimental creeks. Pre-release density was not a good predictor of creek productive capacity, suggesting variation in habitat production and localized recruitment. Further work is needed to understand inter-cohort density-dependent interactions, food chain responses, and variation in habitat productivity.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.218 · 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