MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2669857411 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0532

Recorded captures of American lobster (<i>Homarus americanus</i>) in Swedish waters and an observation of predation on the European lobster (<i>Homarus gammarus</i>)

2017· article· en· W2669857411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vidar Øresland, Mats Ulmestrand, Ann‐Lisbeth Agnalt, Gert Oxby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHavs- och Vattenmyndigheten
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterFisheryFjordGammarusPredationBiologyPopulationDecapodaGeographyCrustaceanOceanographyEcologyDemographyGeologyAmphipoda

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intentional or unintentional release of American lobsters (Homarus americanus), imported through the European seafood trade, has resulted in findings of H. americanus in European waters. A total of 36 specimens was recorded within a smaller area, halfway along the Swedish west coast, between 2008 and 2016. The lobsters were caught by both recreational and professional fishermen and delivered to the Institute of Marine Research in Lysekil, where species identification, measurements, and genetic sampling were performed. Twenty-five of these lobsters were caught inside the sill of the Gullmar Fjord, most of them close to Lysekil harbor, where escapes from an illegal holding is suspected. Six females had eggs, which in two cases were hybrids. While there is no evidence to suggest that a population has been established in the Gullmar Fjord or elsewhere in Swedish waters, serious concerns must be raised regarding the possible consequences for the native species. An American lobster has for the first time been filmed eating a killed European lobster (Homarus gammarus) in Swedish waters.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207