The enhancement of cod stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atlantic cod have been a primary target for marine stock enhancement since the 1880s. In the early part of this period, hatched larvae were released in Norway, the USA and Canada. The last larval releases were conducted in Norway in 1971, and a century of cod larvae releases were halted without any clear evidence of benefit. Since the early 1980s, the focus has been on production of larger, more viable juvenile cod. Emphasis has been given to the design of tag–release programmes involving large‐scale releases and ecosystem analysis in selected ecosystems. Most of this research has been carried out in Norway, where more than one million tagged juvenile cod have been released. Smaller stocking experiments have also been performed in Denmark, Sweden, the Faroe Islands and the USA. This paper reviews the major findings from these programmes. We include summaries and evaluations of rearing techniques for juvenile cod, methods of tagging and recapture, experimental fishing, migration, mortality and growth rates in the different habitats, genetic analysis, and ecosystem studies that have tried to describe the variation in the cod carrying capacity of selected release areas. Despite relatively large variation in environmental conditions, in cod production and in fishing mortality along the Norwegian coast, results indicate that, under the conditions experienced during the 1980s and 1990s, releases of juvenile cod did not significantly increase cod production and catches. The biological limitations and future prospects of Atlantic cod stock enhancement are addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".