MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2176925085 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0489

Counterintuitive patterns of spawning stock age structure and recruitment in Lake Erie yellow perch (<i>Perca flavescens</i>)

2015· article· en· W2176925085 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fan Zhang, Kevin Reid, Thomas D. Nudds

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Commercial Fisheries' AssociationUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecundityPerchBiologyAbiotic componentJuvenilePredationPercidaeEcologyLarvaInterspecific competitionFisheryZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>PopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older spawning fish were often observed to contribute more recruits to harvested stocks than younger fish. However, effects of spawning stock age structure on recruitment were not universally detected. We tested effects of age-dependent absolute fecundity, age-dependent relative fecundity, and age-related maternal effects on recruitment by Lake Erie yellow perch (Perca flavescens). No effects of age-dependent absolute fecundity and age-dependent relative fecundity, nor positive age-related maternal effects, were detected at multidecadal or finer temporal scales of analysis, between 1975 and 2013. Instead, we found evidence of negative age-related maternal effects, of spatially and temporally varying strength; older cohorts in the spawning stock were sometimes associated with lower offspring survival. Such counterintuitive results imply that biotic and abiotic factors, such as interspecific predation, during larval and juvenile life stages might strongly affect recruitment of Lake Erie yellow perch.

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)0.001
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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→