MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131726060 · doi:10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0248

North to Alaska: Evidence for conveyor belt transport of Dungeness crab larvae along the west coast of the United States and Canada

2007· article· en· W2131726060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Won-Gyu Park, David C. Douglas, Thomas C. Shirley

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska FairbanksNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsOceanographyLarvaSpring (device)West coastHatchingFisheryStage (stratigraphy)GeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose and evaluate the hypothesis that Dungeness crab ( Cancer magister ) larvae from the northwestern coast of the United States and Canada can be transported northward to southeastern Alaska. Larvae collected in southeastern Alaska during May and June 1997–2004 had abundances and stages that varied seasonally, interannually, and spatially. An unexpected presence of late‐stage larvae in spring raises a question regarding their origin, and the most plausible explanation is that they hatched off the northern Washington and British Columbia coasts and were transported to southeastern Alaska. Buoy drift tracks support the hypothesis that larvae released off the northern Washington and British Columbia coasts during the peak hatching season can be physically transported to southeastern Alaska, arriving as late‐stage larvae in May and June, when local larvae are only beginning to hatch. A northward spring progression of monthly mean 7°C SST isotherms and phytoplankton blooms provide further evidence that environmental conditions are conducive for larval growth and metabolism during the transport period. The proposed larval transport suggests possible unidirectional gene flow between southern and northern populations of Dungeness crabs in southeastern Alaska.

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 score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
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 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207