Comparison of Three Methods for Aging the Iceland Scallop <i>Chlamys islandica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gilbert Bay (GB) Marine Protected Area (MPA) on the southeastern coast of Labrador was established in 2005 to protect a resident population of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Commercial dredging for Iceland scallops (Chlamys islandica) in the bay was permitted to continue under MPA regulations, but was excluded from areas of cod spawning. The average size of Iceland scallops harvested in GB is smaller than in the Strait of Belle Isle approximately 150 km to the south. Local fishermen have suggested this is due to slow growth, and this prompted the present study to test the hypothesis that Iceland scallops grow more slowly in GB than in the Strait of Belle Isle. Scallop growth was parameterized as change in shell height with age. Three methods of aging individual scallops were used: interpreting external growth rings on the shell, counting growth increments on the calcareous portion of the shell hinge ligament, and counting internal shell layer growth zones. Counting ligament growth increments and internal shell layer growth zones gave similar estimates of age. In comparison, interpreting external growth rings on the shell underestimated the age of individual scallops. If the ligament method and the internal shell layer method of aging are accurate (scallops of known-age were not examined), scallops in GB require eleven years of growth to recruit to the fishery (attain a shell height of 60 mm). This is substantially longer than the 6-y period estimated using the external growth rings method of aging. Growth rate parameters of Iceland scallops in GB, the Strait of Belle, and in the Nuuk area of West Greenland were found to be similar. The relatively small shell size of scallops presently harvested in GB is not due to anomalous growth, but more likely attributable to repeated dredging of scallop beds in the past and removal of the larger individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".