MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024537693 · doi:10.1139/f2012-072

Latitudinal and seasonal effects on growth of the Australian eastern king prawn (<i>Melicertus plebejus</i>)

2012· article· en· W2024537693 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luke R. Lloyd‐Jones, You‐Gan Wang, Anthony J. Courtney, Andrew Prosser, Steven S. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrawnLatitudeGeographyFisherySeasonalityEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of the Australian eastern king prawn ( Melicertus plebejus ) is understood in greater detail by quantifying the latitudinal effect. The latitudinal effect is the change in the species’ growth rate during migration. Mark–recapture data (N = 1635, latitude 22.21°S–34.00°S) presents northerly movement of the eastern king prawn, with New South Wales prawns showing substantial average movement of 140 km (standard deviation: 176 km) north. A generalized von Bertalanffy growth model framework is used to incorporate the latitudinal effect together with the canonical seasonal effect. Applying this method to eastern king prawn mark–recapture data guarantees consistent estimates for the latitudinal and seasonal effects. For M. plebejus, it was found that growth rate peaks on 25 and 29 January for males and females, respectively; is at a minimum on 27 and 31 July, respectively; and that the shape parameter, k (per year), changes by –0.0236 and –0.0556 every 1 degree of latitude south increase for males and females, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→