MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040918680 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0360

New abbreviated calculation for measuring intrinsic rebound potential in exploited fish populations — example for sharks

2015· article· en· W2040918680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David W. Au, Susan E. Smith, Christina Show

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)BiologyProductivityRange (aeronautics)Fish <Actinopterygii>PopulationEcologyFisheryStatisticsMathematicsDemographyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrinsic rebound potential, the demographic measure of a fish population’s productivity that sustains a given mortality, relates to a species’ resiliency and can be useful for understanding and evaluating the status of exploited populations, especially those poorly monitored and of low productivity, like many shark populations. The rebound potential is derived from the Euler–Lotka equation and, with the dynamics kept simple, is easily calculated for a given total mortality, needing only a species’ age at maturity and its natural mortality (M). Its value can be quickly read from an isopleth diagram, whose contour pattern shows the interdependence of these two key parameters among different life histories. How the rebound potentials change as a function of age at maturity and the full range of possible M values also shows a way to estimate a species’ natural mortality bounds. Importance of the age at maturity parameter is stressed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207