MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2591262092 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0307

Otolith shape differences between ecotypes of Icelandic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) with known migratory behaviour inferred from data storage tags

2017· article· en· W2591262092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hlynur Bárðarson, Bruce J. McAdam, Vilhjálmur Þorsteinsson, Einar Hjörleifsson, Guðrún Marteinsdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRannísHáskóli Íslands
KeywordsGadusEcotypeOtolithIcelandicAtlantic codBiologyGadidaeMorphometricsFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Otolith shape can be used to identify ecotypes of the Icelandic cod (Gadus morhua) stock. The use of data storage tags has increased our knowledge of the stock structure of Icelandic cod. The profiles of tagged cod reveal different migratory strategies. This has led to the definition of two ecotypes within the cod stock. Frontal ecotypes reside in deep waters during feeding season and express a highly variable temperature profile associated with thermal fronts, while coastal ecotypes stay in shallow waters all year round. In this study, the data storage tag profiles were analysed with cluster analysis, which revealed the existence of an intermediate behaviour that expresses a variable depth profile and feeding migration that is both shorter in time and not as deep. The main objective was to develop a morphological key based on otoliths to distinguish the ecotypes. The shape of the otoliths was extracted with shape measurements and fast Fourier transforms. A discriminant function analysis indicated a difference in morphology between the ecotypes, resulting in successful classification.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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