MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2322470115 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0079

Comparing growth and maturity of sympatric Atlantic (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) and Greenland (<i>Gadus</i> <i>ogac</i>) cod in coastal Newfoundland

2013· article· en· W2322470115 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
D. Craig Knickle, George A. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadusBiologyAtlantic codGadidaeBayOtolithSympatric speciationCompetition (biology)AllometrySexual maturityFisheryEcologyOceanographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth and maturity of two sympatric gadids were examined from 48 Atlantic (Gadus morhua L., 1758) and 42 Greenland (Gadus ogac Richardson, 1836) cod ranging from 17 to 74 cm in length collected from an inshore area of Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, Canada, during 2009 and 2010. Ages estimated from otolith readings ranged from 2 to 7 for both species. Age and size at 50% maturity differed between species, being 2.3 years and 28.2 cm for G. ogac and 4.6 years and 48.8 cm for G. morhua. von Bertalanffy growth models did not differ between species with parameters L∞ = 91 cm, k = 0.16 year−1, t0 = –0.02 years for G. ogac and L∞ = 112 cm, k = 0.13 year−1, t0 = 0.18 years for G. morhua. Length (L) – mass (W) relationships differed; W = 0.000005 kg·cm−b × L3.17 for G. ogac and W = 0.000011 kg·cm−b × L2.91 for G. morhua suggested slightly positive and negative allometric growth, respectively. For G. morhua, growth curves, length–mass relationships, and maturity rates did not differ between fish collected during this and earlier studies. Differences in maturity schedules and growth may decrease resource competition and help facilitate coexistence of these species.

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)0.001
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 score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→