Pacific-Atlantic halibut ageing workshop and otolith exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, representatives from the age determination units of the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center attended a Pacific-Atlantic halibut otolith exchange workshop in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. The main objective of this workshop was to discuss the methodologies for otolith sample preparation prior to an interagency otolith exchange to calibrate age estimates for both Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis) and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). Background Commercially and ecologically important fish species are often managed by multiple agencies over the geographic range of the species, with each agency collecting otolith samples and producing age estimates for management of their particular stock. Such multi-agency management can lead to independent development of a variety of ageing techniques, even using different age structures, to produce age estimates among agencies. In an attempt to address interagency age assignment variability among northeast Pacific fish species, the Committee of Age Reading Experts (CARE) was formed. CARE is a cooperative effort between state and federal agencies from California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska dedicated to standardizing and improving age determination techniques for species managed by multiple agencies. Activities of CARE include age structure exchanges and hands-on workshops. Hands-on workshops provide an ideal format for experienced age readers from different agencies to compare and demonstrate techniques for sample preparation and age determination. Age estimates can be compared among readers with immediate feedback; a microscope with two sets of eyepieces allows two readers to view an otolith at the same time. Alternatively, an otolith image can be displayed on a screen and increments pointed out to multiple viewers at once. Workshops are also a useful tool for experienced age readers to teach new readers how to prepare and interpret age structures. Several agencies on the east coast of Canada and the U.S. are involved in ageing Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), but many of the readers have limited experience reading halibut otoliths. Staff from the age determination unit of the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) contacted staff from the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) for advice on techniques and equipment for ageing halibut. Staff at both facilities discussed the possibility of a workshop for IPHC staff to demonstrate ageing techniques. Atlantic halibut otoliths are similar to those of Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis) and age readers at the IPHC collectively read over 30,000 Pacific halibut otoliths each year. Following the philosophy of CARE, age determination staff from the IPHC, the Maine DMR, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) met for an interagency otolith exchange workshop
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".