Stock structure of blue threadfin <i>Eleutheronema tetradactylum</i> on the Queensland east coast, as determined by parasites and conventional tagging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blue threadfin Eleutheronema tetradactylum (Polynemidae) were examined from four areas (Princess Charlotte Bay, Trinity Inlet, Halifax Bay and Upstart Bay) in eastern Queensland covering a distance of c. 950 km of coastline. Parasites were used as biological markers to infer stock structure of E. tetradactylum. Parasites designated as 'temporary' biological markers were the copepod Thysanote eleutheronemi, the acanthocephalan Neoechinorhynchus topseyi, the nematode Philometra rajani and hemiurid trematodes. The larval nematodes Anisakis sp. Type 1 and Terranova sp. Type 2; and the larval cestodes Pterobothrium pearsoni and Callitetrarhynchus gracilis were considered 'permanent' biological markers. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that there was little difference in temporary parasite abundance between the four areas. In contrast, the same analyses revealed that most areas had two or more significant differences in permanent parasite abundance, with the exception of Halifax Bay and Upstart Bay, which were significantly different only in the multivariate analysis. Biological markers predicted that Princess Charlotte Bay and Trinity Inlet consisted of distinct populations, whereas Halifax Bay and Upstart Bay were not clearly differentiated. Tag recapture data supported this hypothesis; the majority of recaptures were within 100 km of the initial tagging location. Geographical movement of E. tetradactylum may be limited due to their biology and ecology, as well as the distances and oceanographic boundaries that separate habitats. Contrary to current management definitions, the stock structure of E. tetradactylum on the east coast of Queensland appears to be geographically differentiated at a small spatial scale.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".