MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2297422459 · doi:10.1139/f00-083

Biomass transport to and from an upper estuarine area by migration of juvenile Atlantic herring <i>Clupea harengus</i>

2000· article· en· W2297422459 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joachim Maes, F. Ollevier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClupeaEstuaryHerringBiomass (ecology)FisheryTemperate climateJuvenileEnvironmental scienceClupeidaeAbundance (ecology)Fish migrationJuvenile fishOceanographyBiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model describing fish abundance resulting from fish migration and mortality in an upper estuary is presented. This model can be used to estimate biomass transports by fish migrations between estuary and sea and to assess production assimilated in the estuary. It was applied to herring Clupea harengus L., a marine species with 0+ juveniles that migrate during winter to temperate European estuaries. It was shown that different mortality regimes greatly affected the number of fish that eventually emigrated and, hence, the biomass that was exported during the seaward migration. The difference between imported and exported biomass was assessed under different growth conditions and varied from positive to negative as mortality rates increased. The discrepancy between export of biomass and in situ produced biomass showed that fish production was not necessarily transported to the sea when emigrating. It was tentatively concluded that export of biomass out of the estuary only occurs if populations move seaward before winter.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→