MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146193059 · doi:10.1139/f07-129

Identifying the contribution of wild and hatchery Chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) to the ocean fishery using otolith microstructure as natural tags

2007· article· en· W2146193059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rachel Barnett-Johnson, Churchill B. Grimes, Chantell F. Royer, Christopher J. Donohoe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGordon and Betty Moore FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
KeywordsOncorhynchusHatcheryChinook windOtolithFisheryBiologyFish hatcheryAquacultureStock (firearms)Fish <Actinopterygii>GeographyFish farming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying the contribution of wild (naturally spawned) and hatchery Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to the mixed-stock ocean fishery is critical to understanding their relative importance to the persistence of salmon stocks. The inability to distinguish hatchery and wild salmon has inhibited the detection of declines or recoveries for many wild populations. By using Chinook salmon of known hatchery and wild origin, we established a baseline for separating these two sources using otolith microstructure. Otoliths of wild salmon contained a distinct exogenous feeding check likely reflecting an abrupt transition in food resources from maternal yolk not experienced by fish reared in hatcheries. Daily growth increments in otoliths from hatchery salmon immediately after the onset of exogenous feeding were wider and more uniform in width than those in wild fish. The discriminant function that we used to distinguish individuals reared in hatcheries or in the wild was robust between years (1999 and 2002), life history stages (juveniles and adults), and geographic regions (California, British Columbia, and Alaska) and classified fish with ~91% accuracy. Results from our mixed-stock model estimated that the contribution of wild fish was 10% ± 6%, indicating hatchery supplementation may be playing a larger role in supporting the central California coastal fishery than previously assumed.

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)0.001
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
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

Citations94
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207