MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2025737508 · doi:10.1139/f08-207

Fishing through (and up) Alaskan food webs

2009· article· en· W2025737508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael A. Litzow, Daniel Urban

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrophic levelFood webFishingEcologyOverexploitationFisheryTrophic cascadeEnvironmental scienceClimate changeGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a 112-year time series of Alaskan fishery catches to test competing hypotheses concerning trends in mean catch trophic level, a widely used indicator of fisheries sustainability. We found that mean trophic level has generally remained steady or increased in recent decades on Alaska-wide and regional scales, indicating stable catches of high trophic level taxa. During historical periods of declining mean trophic level, catches of upper trophic level taxa either increased or remained steady, contrary to the predictions of the “fishing down the food web” hypothesis. Further, a climate index was highly correlated (r = 0.69–0.97) with mean trophic level and (or) the related fisheries in balance (FIB) index across climate regime shifts in the 1940s and 1970s, indicating that climate effects, particularly on high trophic level taxa, can act as the major driver of variability in these parameters. These results provide a contrast to the view of ubiquitous declines in mean trophic level of fishery catches, driven by overexploitation and serial stock replacement.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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