MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124378257 · doi:10.1577/t08-097.1

Age Validation of Freshwater Drum using Bomb Radiocarbon

2009· article· en· W2124378257 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon L. Davis‐Foust, Ronald M. Bruch, Steven E. Campana, Robert P. Olynyk, John Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsOtolithRadiocarbon datingDrumTrawlingChronologyAccelerator mass spectrometryMarine speciesGeologyFisheryGeographyPaleontologyBiologyArchaeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ages of freshwater drumAplodinotus grunnienshave typically been estimated by counting the growth increments on their scales or otoliths, but the accuracy of these estimates has not been validated. We used accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) bomb radiocarbon dating to validate age estimates from sagittal otoliths of freshwater drum from the Lake Winnebago system, Wisconsin. The freshwater drum Δ14C chronology from the AMS assay closely reflects the timing and shape of other bomb radiocarbon chronologies, thus validating the accuracy of otolith growth increments to at least age 52 ± 2 years. The progression of a strong 1983 year‐class, which was detected every year sampled over the course of the study (1986, 2003‐2007), and indices of year‐class abundance calculated from trawling assessments on Lake Winnebago (1986‐2007) corroborated otolith ages. Age estimate comparisons between scales, anal spines, dorsal spines, and otoliths showed scales and spines to be completely unreliable as aging structures after age 2. Freshwater drum live to very old ages relative to most other Great Lakes fishes; our oldest specimen based on an otolith age estimate was 58 years old.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207