MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2044991910 · doi:10.1139/f05-235

Spawning season fidelity in sympatric populations of Atlantic herring (<i>Clupea harengus</i>)

2006· article· en· W2044991910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deirdre Brophy, Bret S. Danilowicz, Pauline A. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity College DublinEnterprise Ireland
KeywordsClupeaBiologyAtlantic herringFisherySpawn (biology)PopulationHerringFish migrationOtolithIchthyoplanktonEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable debate surrounds the issue of reproductive exchange between subunits of marine fish populations. Discrete population theories predict that spawning time and location are predetermined during larval life and that spawning season fidelity and natal homing maintain population integrity. Conversely, spawning assemblages may represent interconnected subgroups within metapopulations with social transmission of spawning behaviours facilitating mixing. This study examines spawning season fidelity in three subpopulations of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) with overlapping distributions. Autumn- and winter-spawned fish were collected from spawning and feeding grounds in the Irish and Celtic seas. Hatching season was determined using otolith microstructure and was compared with season of spawning as indicated by visual gonad inspection. Spawning assemblages in the Irish Sea consisted almost exclusively of autumn-spawned fish, despite extensive mixing with winter-spawned fish during the juvenile phase. The available evidence suggests that in Celtic herring, the season and location of spawning are not learned from repeat-spawning adults, but are predetermined, possibly through larval imprinting. The seasonal components showed distinct patterns of gonad development, and estimated rates of spawning season switching were below 10%. Although this exchange rate will facilitate some gene flow, mixing of subgroups is limited. This has important implications for management of seasonal spawning populations.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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