MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2128996646 · doi:10.1139/f05-082

Age validation of canary rockfish (<i>Sebastes pinniger</i>) from off the Oregon coast (USA) using the bomb radiocarbon method

2005· article· en· W2128996646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin R. Piner, Owen S. Hamel, J. Menkel, John R. Wallace, Charles Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRockfishHalibutSebastesRadiocarbon datingOtolithScorpaenidaeChronologyFisheryOceanographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Paleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The alternating translucent and opaque banding pattern in canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) otoliths, aged using a break-and-burn methodology, are annual markings. To validate age assignment, we compared measured radiocarbon levels in canary rockfish otolith cores with a reference chronology developed from known age Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). An average 2- to 3-year phase shift was detected between the canary rockfish and a Pacific halibut reference chronology that was likely the result of differences in the regional oceanography or underageing bias. The assumption of ageing bias consistency was tested with two sampling designs. The first design controled for age-related ageing error, and the second design related birth year to estimated age. No change in the magnitude of ageing bias as a function of age was detected.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→