MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2794693704 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0318

Maternal effects better predict walleye recruitment in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1957–2015: implications for regulations

2018· article· en· W2794693704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie L. Shaw, Greg G. Sass, Justin A. VanDeHey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecundityAbundance (ecology)BiologyPerchEcologyRelative species abundanceFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal influences on age-0 walleye (Sander vitreus (Mitchill, 1818)) recruit abundance and survival from egg to fall were observed in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, in 1957–2015. Annual egg production best explained variation in age-0 recruitment, compared with female relative abundance, and adult abundance (sexes combined). Age-0 recruitment was not significantly correlated with any temperature metric tested or our index of yellow perch (Perca flavescens (Mitchill, 1814)) abundance. Survival of walleye from egg to fall age-0 was positively correlated with the percent contribution of large females (>55.9 cm) to annual egg production. Mean size diversity of females by length class did not influence age-0 recruit abundance or survival over time. Evidence for maternal effects via size- and age-specific influences on fecundity and age-0 walleye survival suggest that exploitation may influence natural recruitment by altering adult female size structure. Given recent declines observed in walleye natural recruitment in the upper Midwestern USA, understanding the roles of maternal drivers and exploitation on recruitment is critical for sustainable walleye management.

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)0.002
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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→