MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162752021 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss103

Modelling the abundance of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) along the Norwegian coast

2012· article· en· W2162752021 on OpenAlexaff
Tor Arne Øigård, Anne Kirstine Frie, Kjell Tormod Nilssen, Mike O. Hammill

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianAbundance (ecology)PopulationConfidence intervalFisheryGeographySeal (emblem)DemographyBiologyStatisticsMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Øigård, T. A., Frie, A. K., Nilssen, K. T., and Hammill, M. O. 2012. Modelling the abundance of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) along the Norwegian coast. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: . An age-structured population dynamics model of the Norwegian grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) population has been developed. The model is of a Bayesian character in the sense that priors for various parameters were used. Model runs indicated an increase in the abundance of the total Norwegian grey seal population during the last 30 years, suggesting a total of 8740 (95% confidence interval: 7320–10 170) animals in 2011. A total catch of 707 (95% confidence interval: 532–882) grey seals would maintain the population size at the 2011 level. Model runs suggest that current catch levels will likely result in a reduction in the population size in Sør-Trøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag counties, and an increase in the population size in Rogaland, Nordland, Troms, and Finnmark counties. The model runs assumed that 80% of the seals taken in Rogaland came from the UK and that 50 and 55% of the catches in Troms and Finnmark, respectively, were immigrants from Russia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207