MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2130539602 · doi:10.1139/f07-137

Effects of predation from pelagic 0-group cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) on mortality rates of capelin (<i>Mallotus villosus</i>) larvae in the Barents Sea

2007· article· en· W2130539602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elvar H. Hallfredsson, Torstein Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsCapelinGadusPredationBiologyPelagic zoneKrillFisheryGadidaeZooplanktonAtlantic codEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveys were carried out in 2002 and 2003 to test whether predation from pelagic 0-group cod (Gadus morhua) juveniles affects mortality rates of Barents Sea capelin (Mallotus villosus) larvae. In 2002, capelin larvae were observed in 17% of the cod stomachs and predation was observed at 19 of 50 stations. In 2003, capelin larvae were observed in 8% of the cod stomachs and predation was observed at 19 of 37 stations. The stomach contents and zooplankton samples were dominated by copepods and krill. The number of capelin larvae in cod stomachs increased with increasing capelin larvae abundance and cod length and decreased with increasing stomach content of copepods and prey abundance of krill. The time when capelin larvae could be recognised after ingestion in the cod stomachs was estimated experimentally and depended on predator and prey lengths. The estimated overall predation mortality rate from juvenile cod on capelin larvae was about 1.5% per day for both years and can potentially have a significant effect on the survival of capelin larvae, depending on the overlap in the different years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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