MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227889946 · doi:10.1651/c-2399

Reproductive Biology and Growth of the Shiba Shrimp, Metapenaeus Joyneri (Decapoda: Penaeidae), on the Western Coast of Korea

2004· article· en· W2227889946 on OpenAlexaff
Hyung Kee, Jung Hwa Choi, Chul Woong Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crustacean Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Fisheries Research and Development Institute
KeywordsShrimpBiologyFecundityDecapodaSexual maturityPopulationReproductionReproductive biologyFisherySex ratioGrowth functionCrustaceanPenaeidaeAnimal scienceEcologyDemographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproduction, growth, population structure, and size at sexual maturity of the shiba shrimp, Metapenaeus joyneri were investigated in the western coast of Korea, Yellow Sea, from April 1994 to November 1995. The spawning season was June–August with peaks in July. Inseminated shrimp appeared from June to August, and the recruitment to the fished population took place in August. This shrimp shows a one-year life cycle with a single spawning season. Size at |$50\% $| sexual maturity |$({{\rm{CL}}_50})$|⁠, determined from both mature females and inseminated females, was |$19.6\;{\rm{mm}}$| and |$20.4\;{\rm{mm}}\;{\rm{CL}}$|⁠, respectively. The smallest mature female found was |$19\;{\rm{mm}}\;{\rm{CL}}$|⁠. Fecundity was directly proportional to the size of the female, with clutch sizes varying from 73,185 ova in the smallest female to 206,131 ova in the largest. Diameters of ova ranged from |$220\;{\rm{\mu m}}$| to |$340\;{\rm{\mu m}}$|⁠. Size distribution of the population was similar in both years of the study. Shrimps were not caught within the studied area during winter (December–March), indicating that the shrimp migrated outside the range of the fishery or were not catchable at this time. Growth was estimated by the modified von Bertalanffy growth function incorporating seasonal variation in growth. In both years, females (⁠|$K = 1.22\;{\rm{yea}}{{\rm{r}}^{ - 1}}$| and |${L_\infty } = 34.7\;{\rm{mm}}\;{\rm{CL}}$|⁠) grew faster and reached a larger size at the same age than males (⁠|$K = 1.02\;{{\rm{year}}^{ - 1}}$| and |${L_\infty } = 29.0\;{\rm{mm}}\;{\rm{CL}}$|⁠). The result is supported by differences in growth performance indices |$({\rm{\varphi '}})$| between females and males.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
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 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crustacean BiologySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207