MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146556313 · doi:10.2960/j.v37.m559

Is there mixing of American Plaice populations in the Flemish Pass?

2006· article· en· W2146556313 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Morgan, W. R. Bowering

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlemishMixing (physics)FisheryEnvironmental sciencePhysicsGeographyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) on the Grand Bank (Divisions 3LNO) and Flemish Cap (Div. 3M) are thought to represent separate populations. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a change in the distribution of American plaice in the region. They were found in the deep waters of the Flemish Pass and in addition, the Grand Bank population as a whole was found in deeper waters. This raises the possibility of mixing between the two populations, at least in the area of the Flemish Pass. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution, size and maturation of American plaice in the Flemish pass to help determine if fish in that area are a mix of fish from the two adjacent populations or if the fish remain separated there. American plaice collected from the western (Div. 3L) and eastern (Div. 3M) sides of the Flemish Pass were clearly different in mean length-at-age and in their maturation, with fish from the eastern side being larger at age and females maturing at a smaller size than those from the western or Grand Bank side of the Flemish Pass. Further, American plaice were not collected in the deepest part of the Pass that was surveyed. Thus it seems that fish in the Flemish Pass area are not mixing but rather are separate groups.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery ScienceSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207