MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791235268 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0432

Evaluating Pacific cod migratory behavior and site fidelity in a fjord environment using acoustic telemetry

2018· article· en· W2791235268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sean A. Lewandoski, Mary Anne Bishop, Megan K. McKinzie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorth Pacific Research BoardRasmuson Foundation
KeywordsFjordGadusOceanographyFisheryOtolithTelemetryGeographyBayEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyGeologyTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) inhabiting Prince William Sound (PWS) may constitute a localized population separate from Gulf of Alaska (GOA) populations; however, connectivity between these regions has not been previously explored. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated Pacific cod migratory behavior and site fidelity using passive acoustic telemetry techniques. Acoustic-tagged Pacific cod (n = 111) were monitored by Ocean Tracking Network acoustic arrays located at the straits and passages connecting PWS with the GOA and arrays deployed in two PWS fjords. Few Pacific cod tagged in PWS moved to the PWS–GOA boundary (1.8%), indicating that demographic connectivity with the GOA was low. Furthermore, 77% of tagged cod spent at least 90% of the time they were known to be alive within small (less than 30 km2) fjords. Cod were present at monitored fjords every month of the study, though some cod migrated away from the fjords during the summer and returned the following winter (11% in 2015 and 5% in 2016). Using continuous-time multistate Markov models, we determined that movement behavior was related to fish length. Larger fish tended to emigrate from monitored fjords more often and undergo longer duration migrations.

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)0.003
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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→