MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072556145 · doi:10.1139/f03-007

Explaining diet composition of North Sea cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>): prey size preference vs. prey availability

2003· article· en· W2072556145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jens Floeter, Axel Temming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadusPredationAbundance (ecology)BiologyGadidaePredatorFisheryAtlantic codEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature and significance of size preference for fish prey in the diet selection of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua L.) was analysed. The analysis combined information on size-specific abundance derived from bottom trawl surveys with prey size frequencies in cod stomachs from the International North Sea Stomach Database. To estimate the abundance of all potential fish prey in the sea, a length-based number spectrum was calculated, corrected for gear efficiency by the application of a species-specific correction factor, and weighted by local predator abundance to take the spatial–temporal overlap between cod and its prey into consideration. A prey size preference model for cod feeding on fish is presented. Results showed that the preferred predator-to-prey weight ratio is an exponentially increasing function of predator size and an exponentially decreasing function of the slope of the number spectrum. More than 75% of fish found in the stomachs of North Sea cod originated from the least preferred quartile of the prey size range, indicating that prey abundance is the main determinant of the diet composition.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations72
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207