MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172911032 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0230

The theoretical foundations for size spectrum models of fish communities

2015· article· en· W2172911032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ken H. Andersen, Keith D. Farnsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVillum Fonden
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyBiologyFisheryEconometricsStatisticsGeographyEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Size spectrum models have emerged from 40 years of basic research on how body size determines individual physiology and structures marine communities. They are based on commonly accepted assumptions and have a low parameter set, making them easy to deploy for strategic ecosystem-oriented impact assessment of fisheries. We describe the fundamental concepts in size-based models about food encounter and the bioenergetics budget of individuals. Within the general framework, three model types have emerged that differ in their degree of complexity: the food-web, the trait-based, and the community models. We demonstrate the differences between the models through examples of their response to fishing and their dynamic behavior. We review implementations of size spectrum models and describe important variations concerning the functional response, whether growth is food-dependent or fixed, and the density dependence imposed on the system. Finally, we discuss challenges and promising directions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations109
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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