MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157504657 · doi:10.1017/s0954102001000542

Seasonal relative abundance of fish larvae inshore at Îles Kerguelen, Southern Ocean

2001· article· en· W2157504657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philippe Koubbi, Guy Duhamel, Craig E. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueAntarctic Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsIchthyoplanktonPelagic zoneMesopelagic zoneOceanographyFisheryFjordZooplanktonSpring (device)Water columnPlanktonArchipelagoAbundance (ecology)BiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted seasonally with 36 surveys between spring 1989 and spring 1992 in four bays in the Kerguelen archipelago: Morbihan, Baleiniers, Choiseul and Audierne. Golfe des Baleiniers is open to the shelf whereas Choiseul and Audierne are long fjords. Golfe du Morbihan is a very large and protected area open to the shelf at its eastern end. Larvae of neritic species were abundant outside whereas larvae of inshore species were abundant inside the Golfe du Morbihan. Larval Lepidonotothen squamifrons were detected during summer every year whereas larvae of Champsocephalus gunnari were observed in only two years, mainly in the northern coastal zone. For both species, our results support coastal spawning grounds in addition to those on the shelf slope. Larvae of the mesopelagic fish Krefftichthys anderssoni were dominant primarily during winter; this was linked to homogenisation of the water column over the shelf and the coastal zone. Larvae of Notothenia cyanobrancha were present throughout the year everywhere, which is linked to the year long pelagic earlylife-history phase.

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)0.000
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntarctic ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207