Hydrological and trophic characteristics of tuna habitat: consequences on tuna distribution and longline catchability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied relationships between tropical tunas (albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye (Thunnus obesus), and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares)) and their biotic and abiotic environments through simultaneous acoustic observations of tunas and their prey, experimental longline catch, and oceanographic data in French Polynesia. Vertical habitat limits were estimated based on temperature and dissolved oxygen at capture data. We then studied tuna-micronekton relationships to better understand how tuna occupy the pelagic space. At a regional scale, tunas were more abundant in areas rich in prey with favourable hydrological conditions. Inside such areas, at the scale of a longline set, however, the longline catches were maximal only when prey were not distributed in dense patches (except for yellowfin tuna). We interpreted this result by considering that areas with high prey abundance attract tunas, but at a small scale, if prey are patchy distributed, tunas are more inclined to feed on them rather than on longline baits. The effect of patches on yellowfin tuna catch per unit effort (CPUE) does not appear likely because this species also feeds on the mixed layer, where patch density was very low. Not only hydrological characteristics, but also prey density and prey patch characteristics, should be taken into account for interpreting longline CPUE data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".