MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2384498883 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0321

Reproductive strategy of a migratory fish stock: implications of spatial variations in natural mortality

2016· article· en· W2384498883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Øystein Langangen, Geir Ottersen, Lorenzo Ciannelli, Frode B. Vikebø, Leif Christian Stige

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGadusOffspringBiologyReproductive successAtlantic codFish stockReproductionEcologyStock (firearms)Fish <Actinopterygii>FisheryDemographyGeographyPopulationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how the reproductive strategy in a migratory marine fish may be influenced by spatial variations in mortality in early life stages. In particular, we examine how spawning time and location affect offspring survival and growth. A drift model for early life stages (eggs to age 1) of the Barents Sea cod (Gadus morhua) is combined with empirical estimates of spatial variation in mortality at two different life stages. We examine seasonal and interannual differences in survival and growth in offspring originating from two spawning grounds, with the central site requiring higher migration distance, and hence cost, than the northern site. When accounting for spatially explicit mortality fields, central and northern spawned offspring have about equal survival, as do early and late spawned offspring. Furthermore, central spawned offspring grow faster and are likely to reach a larger size compared with northern spawned offspring. Our results indicate that the fitness benefit of southward migration in the Barents Sea cod is not mainly due to higher early survival of offspring, but rather due to effects of offspring acquiring a larger size.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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