MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082049029 · doi:10.1139/f04-137

Comparison of reference points estimated using a size-based method for two high-latitude crab species in the United States and Canada

2004· article· en· W2082049029 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
M SM Siddeek, Bernard Sainte‐Marie, Jim Boutillier, Gretchen H. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)FisheryLatitudeStock assessmentBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceSnowBiologyFishingGeographyEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We briefly reviewed the decision rules currently used for managing two major high-latitude crab stocks, snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), in the United States and Canada and compared them with model-based reference points, harvest rate, and biomass proportion relative to virgin biomass, developed using species- and area-specific parameters. The model followed a size-based approach, which incorporated Beverton–Holt and Ricker stock–recruitment models and estimated mean and median reference points. The recruitment was also perturbed to generate distributions of reference points. The Beverton–Holt stock–recruitment model provided a lower harvest rate than that of the Ricker model. Harvest rates were lower for combined sexes spawning biomass than for female-only spawning biomass. Increasing the minimum size at first capture and decreasing the handling mortality resulted in increased harvest rates. Changes in fishery duration and timing of fishery open date did not change the harvest rate appreciably. The harvest rates for the Canadian snow and Dungeness crabs were mostly higher than those estimated for the Bering Sea and Southeast Alaska stocks. Reliable estimates of a number of life history parameters are lacking for both species, and hence, the results of this exercise need to be treated in a precautionary manner.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207