The return of cod transplanted from a spawning ground in southern Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the navigation mechanisms used by Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) to locate spawning grounds we conducted a biotelemetric study in which 23 large (74–98 cm) spawners were displaced in small groups up to 35 km from a coastal Newfoundland spawning ground at Bar Haven, Placentia Bay. Overall, approximately 60% of the transplanted fish returned to the grounds, most within a few days. The data derived from this exercise allow the development of hypotheses regarding the navigatory mechanisms used by cod during movements on a small scale spatially. The return success was negatively related to distance of the release sites from the spawning ground (p<0.05) but was higher when fish were released along a known migratory pathway, or when released upcurrent of the spawning site. There was no support for the hypotheses that cod conducted contra-natant spawning migrations or tracked water-borne chemical-olfactory signals respectively. Transplanted groups did not stay together but a group transplanted near a large cod aggregation stayed there for some time, although 50% eventually returned to Bar Haven. Finally, our data suggest that cod moved towards an omnidirectional “attractor”, such as a characteristic sound or geophysical signature, that dissipates with distance perhaps in combination with spatial memory of bathymetry or current structures and the presence of maturing conspecifics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".