MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2624342815 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0523

Comparative growth, age at maturity and sex change, and longevity of Hawaiian parrotfishes, with bomb radiocarbon validation

2017· article· en· W2624342815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward E. DeMartini, Allen H. Andrews, Kathrine Howard, Brett M. Taylor, Dong-Chun Lou, Mary K. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesUniversity of Hawai'iWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySexual maturityLongevityFish measurementMaturity (psychological)EcologyZoologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth rates and longevities were estimated for five major fishery species of parrotfishes (“uhu”) at Oahu, Hawai’i. All species grew rapidly with von Bertalanffy growth formula k values ≥0.4·year−1. Longevities were found to range broadly among the three small species, 4 years in Calotomus carolinus and 6 and 11 years in Scarus psittacus and Chlorurus spilurus, and to 15–20 years in Scarus rubroviolaceus and Chlorurus perspicillatus for the two large species. Age reading and growth curves for the latter two large species were validated using bomb radiocarbon dating. Median ages at sexual maturity as females (AM50) and at sex change (from female to terminal phase male, AΔ50) were estimated using logistic models. Sexual maturation occurred at 1–2 years for the small species and at 3–3.5 years in the large species. AΔ50 estimates ranged from 2 to 4 years in the small species and were about 5 and 7 years in S. rubroviolaceus and C. perspicillatus, respectively. Estimated milestones poorly corresponded to the current minimum legal size for uhu in Hawai’i (12 in. or 30.5 cm fork length). Pooling these parrotfishes for management seems generally inappropriate, especially for the two large species. Age-based metrics are more informative than size-based metrics for these fishes.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.260
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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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