MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized biophysical model for Icelandic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) larvae

2007· article· en· W2060797490 on OpenAlexaff
David Brickman, Lorna Taylor, Asta Gudmundsdóttir, Guðrún Marteinsdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadusPelagic zoneRange (aeronautics)Abundance (ecology)IcelandicOceanographyFisheryEnvironmental scienceSubmarine pipelineBiologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A characteristic of biophysical models (BPM) is that they contain a number of parameters that are poorly known or only known within a range of possible values. This paper describes an efficient optimized BPM developed to simulate the Icelandic cod pelagic 0‐group survey data. The method is based on presenting the results as a probability density function (PDF) that a particle released from a given spawning drifts downstream to a given grid location some time later. The model determines egg production model parameters (peak spawning time, spawning duration, number of eggs released) for each of 15 spawning grounds as the solution of a bound constrained optimization problem that minimizes model‐data misfits in abundance and age distributions. The model is applied to simulating the 2002 and 2003 summer survey data. The model does a reasonable job of simulating the observed inshore / offshore abundance gradient and spatial age gradient for each year. Problem areas are explained from the point of view of model limitations. We caution that the results from an optimized model should always be assessed with the model’s limitations in mind and with respect to whatever biological data are available.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207