MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152659696 · doi:10.1139/f02-014

Disentangling the effects of size-selective mortality, density, and temperature on length-at-age

2002· article· en· W2152659696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A F Sinclair, Douglas P. Swain, J. Mark Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDensity dependenceOtolithPopulation sizePopulation densityPopulationGrowth ratePopulation growthBiologyStatisticsEnvironmental scienceAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyMathematicsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative importance of size-selective mortality, density-dependent growth, and temperature on growth of a commercial fish population was investigated using an integrated statistical analysis. Two indices of size-selective mortality were determined using otolith backcalculations. One index measured the direct effect on population mean growth increments in the year of the growth increment. The second index measured the cumulative effect on the growth potential of a cohort. Indices of population density, occupied temperature, and bottom temperature were developed from annual synoptic research vessel surveys of the population. We simultaneously tested effects of these factors using a modified von Bertalanffy growth model. The strongest effect was variation in size-selective mortality, followed by a negative effect of population density and a weak positive effect of occupied temperature. Effects of bottom temperature conditions were not significant. Failure to simultaneously consider alternative mechanisms, especially size-selective mortality, can lead to incorrect conclusions about the role of environmental factors in determining growth of fishes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations136
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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