MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793414415 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0346

Stock structure and connectivity of the American lobster (<i>Homarus americanus</i>) in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: Do benthic movements matter?

2018· article· en· W2793414415 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bryan L. Morse, Brady K. Quinn, Michel Comeau, Rémy Rochette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomarusBiological dispersalAmerican lobsterBenthic zonePelagic zoneFisheryFishingGeographyEcologyStock (firearms)OceanographyBiologyCrustaceanGeologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long-range dispersal of pelagic larvae is often assumed to be the dominant force behind connectivity in the marine environment, with little consideration given to benthic movements. We analyzed data from an American lobster (Homarus americanus) tagging study (1980–1996) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during which 37 579 adults from 14 locations were tagged and 6296 were recaptured after 1–6 years at large. The 10th percentile greatest distance moved by tagged lobsters after 1 year at large contributed to demographic connectivity between neighbouring statistical districts, fishing ports, and (in one location) management areas. Considering the incremental dispersal of lobsters after 2 versus 1 year at large, we estimated that the 10th percentile greatest benthic dispersal distances after 1, 2, and 5 years at large represented, respectively, 7%, 14%, and 35% of larval dispersal in the “downstream” direction and 75%, 111%, and 220% of larval dispersal in the “upstream” direction (similar results obtained based on mean dispersal values). We conclude that more attention should be given to benthic movements in estimating connectivity and stock structure in American lobster.

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)0.001
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 score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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