MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096287003 · doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.11.005

Running the gauntlet: the predation environment of small fish in the northern Gulf of St Lawrence, Canada

2005· article· en· W2096287003 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel E. Duplisea

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationFisheryPredatorLimitingBorealPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predation size spectra were constructed for the northern Gulf of St Lawrence, covering prey size ranges that include pre-recruit cod. Predation by fish and harp seals was modelled with a log-normally distributed predator–prey size ratio along with a relationship between predator body size and the energy required. Fish concentrate predation on prey of weight 0.5–2 g, whereas harp seals prefer prey of 60–125 g. It is speculated that predation caused by harp seals on pre-recruits could be a major factor limiting cod recruitment in the system. The northern Gulf of St Lawrence is a cold boreal system with a large predatory seal population, and cod recruit older than elsewhere. Therefore, cod recruitment may be more strongly affected by predation in the northern Gulf of St Lawrence than in warmer systems such as the North Sea, where recruitment is strongly influenced by temperature.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207