MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165598409 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2335

Cycles, stochasticity and density dependence in pink salmon population dynamics

2010· article· en· W2165598409 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Krkošek, Ray Hilborn, Randall M. Peterman, Thomas P. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDensity dependenceDynamics (music)Statistical physicsPopulationPhysicsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex dynamics of animal populations often involve deterministic and stochastic components. A fascinating example is the variation in magnitude of 2-year cycles in abundances of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) stocks along the North Pacific rim. Pink salmon have a 2-year anadromous and semelparous life cycle, resulting in odd- and even-year lineages that occupy the same habitats but are reproductively isolated in time. One lineage is often much more abundant than the other in a given river, and there are phase switches in dominance between odd- and even-year lines. In some regions, the weak line is absent and in others both lines are abundant. Our analysis of 33 stocks indicates that these patterns probably result from stochastic perturbations of damped oscillations owing to density-dependent mortality caused by interactions between lineages. Possible mechanisms are cannibalism, disease transmission, food depletion and habitat degradation by which one lineage affects the other, although no mechanism has been well-studied. Our results provide comprehensive empirical estimates of lagged density-dependent mortality in salmon populations and suggest that a combination of stochasticity and density dependence drives cyclical dynamics of pink salmon stocks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsFrench-language works237,207