MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885666589 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0112

A transformative approach to ageing fish otoliths using Fourier transform near infrared spectroscopy: a case study of eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock (<i>Gadus chalcogrammus</i>)

2018· article· en· W2885666589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas E. Helser, Irina M. Benson, J. David Erickson, Jordan Healy, Craig R. Kastelle, Jonathan A. Short

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsPollockOtolithFish <Actinopterygii>RepeatabilityGadusNear-infrared spectroscopyFisheryAbsorbanceOceanographyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGeologyBiologyChemistryStatisticsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the use of Fourier transform near infrared spectroscopy (FT-NIRS), which is a method of measuring light absorbance signatures, to derive ages from eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) otoliths. This approach is based on a predictive model between near infrared spectra in the otolith and fish age, which is calibrated and validated. The advantage of FT-NIRS over traditional methods is the speed and repeatability with which age estimates are generated. The application of FT-NIRS to walleye pollock otoliths yielded r 2 values between 0.91 and 0.95 for the calibration models and good validation performance (between 0.82 and 0.93). This approach can be expected to predict fish age within ±1.0 year of age 67% of the time. When comparing approaches, the FT-NIRS had as good or slightly better precision (75% agreement) than the traditional ageing (66% agreement) and showed little or no bias at age before 12 years of age. Once the predictive FT-NIR model is calibrated and validated, age estimates using FT-NIRS can be done at 10 times the rate compared to traditional methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207