MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030633480 · doi:10.1139/f08-198

The impact of double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) predation on anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in south-central Connecticut, USA

2009· article· en· W2030633480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Dalton, David J. Ellis, David M. Post

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Biospheric Studies, Yale UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAlewifeCormorantFish migrationPredationFisheryPopulationBiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline of anadromous alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ) threatens an important recreational and commercial fishery. While the cause of this decline is uncertain, predators could be trapping alewives at low abundance by preying on them during spawning migrations. Here we investigate the impact of predation by double-crested cormorants ( Phalacrocorax auritus ) on spawning adult alewives in south-central Connecticut, USA. We use a bioenergetic model together with estimates of cormorant diets and cormorant and alewife population sizes to estimate the consumption of alewives by cormorants both in Bride Lake, Connecticut, and regionally. We find that cormorants are important predators of spawning adult alewives at Bride Lake but do not have a notable impact on alewife mortality or population size. We also find that cormorants have little effect on alewife populations across south-central Connecticut because few alewives are consumed away from Bride Lake. We conclude that cormorants are important predators for anadromous alewives, but do not pose an immediate threat to the recovery of regional alewife stocks.

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 score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207