Connections between Campeche Bank and Red Snapper Populations in the Gulf of Mexico via Modeled Larval Transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The potential for Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus on Campeche Bank to contribute to regional fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico through larval transport was studied using numerical circulation model data. A tracking algorithm was applied at an array of starting locations over Campeche Bank and simulated larval propagules launched every 3 d during the spawning seasons of four model years within the period 2003–2010. Successful recruitment was defined as arrival in water depths less than 200 m after 31 d of planktonic drift, regional recruitment being defined as a percentage of propagules launched. It was found that successful natal retention to Campeche Bank was high, varying between 67% and 73% of all launched propagules. However, successful recruitment to other regions around the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) was sporadic and extremely low. Robustness of the methodology was examined in a set of experiments involving larval depth and subgrid scale diffusion. The results suggest that larvae from Campeche Bank can contribute to homogenization of the gene pool throughout the GOM but may be insufficient to restore depleted regional populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".