MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057195039 · doi:10.1577/m09-027.1

Historical and Current Population Characteristics and Subsistence Harvest of Arctic Char from the Sylvia Grinnell River, Nunavut, Canada

2010· article· en· W2057195039 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colin P. Gallagher, Terry A. Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArctic charSubsistence agricultureFishingFisherySalvelinusStock assessmentPopulationGeographyArcticStock (firearms)The arcticEcologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyArchaeologyOceanographyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data describing Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus were collected in 2002 and 2004 and compared with historical data collected over the past 60 years from the Sylvia Grinnell River, Nunavut, Canada, to determine population status. The goal of the study was to provide information that could be used to manage the stock. Current subsistence harvest was estimated based on data collected from gillnetting, angling, and snagging. The Arctic char subsistence harvest was estimated at 8,364 kg in 2002 and 7,956 kg in 2004. The current population remains well below historic levels, but it has improved since 1976–1977. The improved status of the stock is based on increased length at age, increased mean weight, longer and older fish, decreased mortality rate, and improved catch indices from experimental gill nets and angling. Future benchmarks useful for evaluating the population's status include (1) proportion of females that have reached reproductive age, (2) proportion of older and longer fish, (3) mortality rate, and (4) catch per angler-hour. The fishery should be monitored by enumerating the harvest, quantifying fishing effort from all gear types, and recording biological data. Experimental gill nets should be periodically used to obtain biological data for comparison with the 2002 and 2004 data. Snagging should be prohibited since most young Arctic char (<200–300 mm) are injured and are not utilized by the fishery, and it is impossible to estimate the number of Arctic char larger than 200 mm that are struck and lost instead of landed. We recommend (1) closing all fishing at the base of the falls and at least 500 m into the estuary, (2) limiting gill-net mesh size to no less than 114 mm, (3) implementing benchmarks to evaluate population status, (4) obtaining an estimate of the population size, and (5) determining the exploitation rate.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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