Does redistribution or local growth underpin rebuilding of Canada’s Northern cod?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stock structure of Canada’s Northern cod (Gadus morhua), the largest of many depleted groundfish stocks having multiple spawning areas, is rebuilding by redistribution and not solely by local population growth. In 2007–2008, late winter acoustic surveys suggested initial rebuilding in the southern-most part of the offshore range (Bonavista Corridor, NAFO Divisions 3KL), likely including fish dispersing from the inshore. Thereafter, acoustically determined biomass increases averaged 30% per annum (to near 240 000 t in 2014). In contrast, formerly dominant stock areas farther north retained few fish, mostly juveniles. In 2015, however, biomass in the northern stock range (NAFO Division 2J) reached 65 000 t and mid-north Notre Dame Channel (3K) reached 101 000 t, with Bonavista Corridor declining to 136 000 t. Biomass pooled over all surveyed regions totaled 302 000 t, consistent with sustained 30% growth. Latitudinal gradients in cod size, age distributions, and individual growth existed both historically and recently, but not in 2015. The evidence suggests that the rapid increases of depopulated northern groups resulted from redistribution from the south within a metapopulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".