MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051204024 · doi:10.1139/f06-064

Survival of Arctic cod larvae (<i>Boreogadus saida</i>) in relation to sea ice and temperature in the Northeast Water Polynya (Greenland Sea)

2006· article· en· W2051204024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louis Fortier, Pascal Sirois, Josée Michaud, David G. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSea iceOceanographySpring (device)Environmental sciencePopulationCohortArctic ice packClimatologySea surface temperatureFisheryGeologyBiologyDemographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that the survival of Arctic cod larvae (Boreogadus saida) is limited at sea ice cover &gt;50% and sea surface temperature (SST) &lt;0 °C. In 1993 in the Northeast Water Polynya, a spring cohort (14 May – 15 June) was hatched under heavy ice cover (58%–91%) and cold SST (–1.7 to –1.0 °C) and a summer cohort (21 June – 21 July) under low ice cover (4%–31%) and above-zero SST (1.5 to 3.9 °C). Consistent with the hypothesis, the spring cohort had almost completely vanished by age 10 days (first feeding stage), while the summer cohort survived well and dominated the population by the end of our sampling in early August. By then, the few surviving spring larvae were on average 5.7 mm longer than summer larvae (18.6 vs. 12.9 mm). A retrospective analysis of ice cover in the polynya (1979 to 2003) indicated that first-feeding larvae of the spring cohort encountered good survival conditions (sea ice &lt;50% and SST &gt;0 °C) in only 12% of the years compared with 80% for the summer cohort. The survival advantage provided by a larger size at the onset of Arctic winter could explain the evolutionary persistence of a spring cohort despite the low probability of initial survival.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations67
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207