MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049456825 · doi:10.1577/m08-156.1

Maturation Schedules of Walleye Populations in the Great Lakes Region: Comparison of Maturation Indices and Evaluation of Sampling-Induced Biases

2009· article· en· W2049456825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hui‐Yu Wang, H. Andrew Cook, Donald W. Einhouse, David G. Fielder, Kevin A. Kayle, Lars G. Rudstam, Tomas O. Höök

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research LaboratoryU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBayBiologySampling (signal processing)Maturity (psychological)FisheryEcologyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maturation schedules, key determinants of fish stocks' harvest potential and population dynamics, are influenced by both plastic and adaptive processes. Various indices are used to describe maturation schedules, and these have differential advantages for discriminating between plastic and adaptive processes. However, potential sampling-related biases associated with different maturation indices have not been fully evaluated. We analyzed three maturation indices for walleyes Sander vitreus in Lake Erie; Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron; and Oneida Lake, New York: age and length at 50% maturity, midpoint of age-specific maturity ogives (age-specific length at which probability of maturity = 0.50), and midpoints of probabilistic maturation reaction norms (PMRNs; age-specific length at which probability of maturing in the following year = 0.50). We then compared estimated maturation indices to evaluate sensitivity of different maturation indices to sampling-induced biases and to assess the relative importance of plastic versus adaptive processes in structuring interstock and temporal variation in maturation schedules. Our findings suggest that although small changes in sampling month, gear, and agency-related effects can bias estimates of age and length at 50% maturity and midpoints of maturity ogives, PMRN estimates appear to be robust to these biases. Furthermore, PMRN estimates are suggestive of potential adaptive variation in maturation schedules among walleye stocks and over time. For instance, Oneida Lake walleyes (which had relatively slow growth and low mortality rates) matured at a smaller size for a given age (smaller midpoints of PMRNs) than the other stocks. Temporally, walleyes in the western basin of Lake Erie matured at a larger size in recent years, as evidenced by increasing midpoints of PMRNs (1978–1989 versus 1990–2006 for Ohio Department of Natural Resources data and 1990–1996 versus 1997–2006 for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources data). Our study highlights the necessity of monitoring maturation schedules via multiple maturation indices and the need to account for sampling-induced biases when comparing maturation schedules.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207