MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2148908861 · doi:10.1139/f01-047

Implications of protracted recruitment for perception of the spawnerrecruit relationship

2001· article· en· W2148908861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. R. J. Sheehy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International CenterMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
KeywordsBiologyHomarusEcologyVariation (astronomy)Range (aeronautics)FisheryCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In European lobster, Homarus gammarus, wide growth variation means that annual recruitment to a fishery (individuals reaching legal size in the same year) consists of at least six year-classes (individuals hatching in the same year). In this paper, a simple simulation analysis is used to explore the effects of uncertainty about the specifics of this protracted recruitment pattern on the way that we perceive the spawner–recruit relationship. In the simulation, if the age range of recruits is underestimated or a simple correction for growth variation is applied by averaging numbers of recruits across years, a spawner–recruit relationship with artefactual curvature and noise arises. Growth variability is typical in animal populations and problems with protracted recruitment may occur in any situation where recruitment is based on size. Asymptotic spawner–recruit curves may not necessarily reflect density-dependent compensatory mortality and resilience to harvesting. The evidence presented here has important management implications for lobster and other exploited species.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→