MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116667500 · doi:10.1139/f08-148

Behaviour and habitat preferences of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and their influence on longline fishery catches in the western Coral Sea

2008· article· en· W2116667500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Evans, Adam Langley, Naomi Clear, Peter A. Williams, Toby A. Patterson, John Sibert, John Hampton, John Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries Research and Development CorporationCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsThunnusTunaFisheryScombridaeFisheries managementEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)OceanographyBiologyFishingFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on the depth and temperature preferences of bigeye tuna ( Thunnus obesus ) derived from archival tags were integrated with data on the spatial and temporal distribution of catches from an eastern Australian longline fishery to investigate the relationship between bigeye tuna behaviour and the fishery. Tagged individuals demonstrated variability in depth and water temperature preferences on diurnal, lunar, and seasonal scales. Deeper, cooler waters were frequented during the day, and shallower, warmer waters were frequented at night, with nighttime preferences often deeper around the full moon, although this was not consistent between individuals or temporally within individuals. Marked individual variability in depth and water temperature preferences suggest bigeye tuna are flexible in foraging strategies utilized, thereby allowing individuals to maximize their ability to successfully forage in a patchy environment. Catches of bigeye tuna corresponded with the spatial and temporal overlap of bigeye tuna distributions within the fishery on similar scales, suggesting clear influence of bigeye tuna behaviour on the behaviour of the fishery and catches. However, variability in these relationships suggests that the factors influencing the relative catchability of bigeye tuna are complex, and there are likely to be a range of additional environmental, behavioural, and operational factors that influence bigeye tuna catchability.

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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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