MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126865825 · doi:10.1139/f06-005

Age, growth, and latitudinal patterns of two Rajidae species in the northwestern Atlantic: little skate (<i>Leucoraja erinacea</i>) and winter skate (<i>Leucoraja ocellata</i>)

2006· article· en· W2126865825 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael G. Frisk, Thomas J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkateChondrichthyesBiologyFisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertebral samples of little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) and winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) were collected from Cape Hatteras, USA, to Canadian waters to estimate age, growth, and length at weight relationships for both species throughout this range. Maximum observed age was 12.5 and 20.5 years for little skate and winter skate, respectively. Significant length at weight relationships were found for both species. von Bertalanffy growth curves for the northwestern Atlantic were estimated for little skate (k = 0.19, L ∞ = 56.1 cm, t 0 = –1.17, p &lt; 0.0001, n = 236) and winter skate (k = 0.07, L ∞ = 122.1 cm, t 0 = –2.07, p &lt; 0.0001, n = 229). Additionally, latitudinal patterns in size and growth were observed in little skate, with individuals in northern regions growing slower and reaching a larger asymptotic size: von Bertalanffy growth estimates (mid-Atlantic, k = 0.22, L ∞ = 53.26 cm, t 0 = –1.04, p &lt; 0.0001; southern New England – Georges Bank, k = 0.20, L ∞ = 54.34 cm, t 0 = –1.22, p &lt; 0.0001; Gulf of Maine, k = 0.18, L ∞ = 59.31 cm, t 0 = –1.15, p &lt; 0.0001). Although differences were observed for sex-specific growth curves for both species, only winter skate curves were significantly different.

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)0.001
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 score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations63
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207