Tagging along: association among individual Pacific herring (<i>Clupea pallasi</i>) revealed by tagging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 570 000 Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) were tagged with external anchor tags during 429 tag release sessions between 1979 and 1992. Individually numbered tags were released in quantities of 10002000 at a time and recovered from commercial fisheries. Often several tags were recovered at the same time and place, and some recoveries occurred as "matches", where two or more tags from a single release session were recovered together. We tested the hypothesis that the frequency of matching tag recoveries occurred by chance through random mixing of tagged herring before their recapture during fishing operations. The alternative is nonrandom, positive association among tagged individuals that persisted through time and during migrations. We used a statistical method developed to address a similar question in steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In separate tests, we examined tag recovery data from migratory stocks in five major regions of the British Columbia. The results indicate nonrandom association of herring for periods of 6 months to several years and through migrations over considerable distances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".