MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470055811 · doi:10.1080/19425120.2016.1161683

Stock-Specific Size and Migration of Juvenile Coho Salmon in British Columbia and Southeast Alaska Waters

2016· article· en· W2470055811 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Terry D. Beacham, Richard J. Beamish, Chrys Neville, John R. Candy, Colin Wallace, Strahan Tucker, Marc Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Coastal Fisheries · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaCanadian Space AgencyBonneville Power AdministrationGenome British ColumbiaWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsJuvenileFisheryStock (firearms)OceanographyGeographyArchaeologyBiologyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The variation at 17 microsatellites was analyzed for 5,270 juvenile Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch obtained from coastal British Columbia and Gulf of Alaska surveys during 1998–2012. A 270-population baseline was used to determine the individual identifications of the fish sampled, with individuals being identified to 22 stocks of origin. Columbia River and Washington juveniles were consistently larger than those from British Columbia and Alaska. During June, the larger individuals within a stock were observed in more northerly locations. There was a relationship between the timing of northward migration and juvenile body size, with larger individuals migrating earlier than smaller individuals from the same stocks. Stock composition was more diverse in the northern sampling regions than in those in southern British Columbia. There was only a modest change in stock composition between fall and winter samples in both the Strait of Georgia and west coast of Vancouver Island sampling regions, indicating that juvenile migration had largely been completed by the fall. There was a wide divergence among stocks in juvenile size and dispersion among sampling locations. Received December 9, 2015; accepted February 9, 2016

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Coastal FisheriesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207