MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modelling changes in the length–frequency distributions of fish larvae using field estimates of predator abundance and size distributions

2001· article· en· W2118895750 on OpenAlexaff
A.R. Paradis, Pierre Pepin

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapelinPredationAbundance (ecology)BayBiologyPredatorLarvaIchthyoplanktonFisheryPopulationEcologyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study is to determine if an individual‐based size‐dependent model can realistically simulate changes in the length–frequency distributions of several species of fish larvae collected in Conception Bay in 1993 and 1994, using field estimations of growth and predator abundance. We first model the length–frequency distribution of field samples with the best possible estimates of mean growth rate. Then, we add predation mortality given the characteristics of the predator community observed during our surveys, which was composed of macrozooplankton and adult capelin. The larval fish community is generally not affected by predation by macrozooplankton, as the average instantaneous mortality rate predicted by the model was 0.004 day –1 . Fish larvae appear to be more vulnerable to predation by the population of adult capelin. We estimate that an abundance of adult capelin ranging between 0.2 and 1.0 individuals per 1000 m –3 may have a substantial impact on the larval fish community. The predictions of an individual‐based model are directly related to the accuracy of estimates of the mean growth rates of the larval fish cohorts. We find that it is difficult to differentiate size‐selective removal of individuals from random selection by analysing changes of the length–frequency distributions of the larval fish community.

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)0.000
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207