MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Population Structure of Dungeness Crab (Cancer magister) in British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2046769413 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Terry D. Beacham, Janine Supernault, Kristina M. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Shellfish Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsPopulationBiologySound (geography)Population structureFisheryColumbia universityIsolation by distanceLarvaGeographyZoologyEcologyGenetic variationGenetic structureDemographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population structure of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) from British Columbia was evaluated from a survey of variation of eight microsatellite loci in eight populations. Genetic differentiation among the populations surveyed was observed, with the mean Fst for all loci 0.031 (SD = 0.007). The Alison Sound population in the British Columbia central coast displayed less genetic variation and was distinct from all other populations in British Columbia, with pairwise Fst values >0.12, over 20 times the differentiation in other comparisons. The results were consistent with a high level of retention of larval crabs within Alison Sound, owing to reduced water exchange between the sound and adjacent waters. There was no evidence for an isolation by distance model of population structure of Dungeness crab in British Columbia, but there was some indication of differentiation between a west coast Vancouver Island population and a population adjacent to the southern Strait of Georgia.

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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Shellfish ResearchSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207