Comparing three methods to estimate the average size at first maturity: A case study on a Curimatid exhibiting polyphasic growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The average size at first |maturity (L 50 ) is among the most important parameters for fisheries management and conservation. This paper aims to compare three different methods for its estimation. Considering a classical approach, a logistic model was used (a) by determining the gonadal stage macroscopically; and (b) by using the GSI as proxy of sexual maturity; and finally; (c) by using the length–weight relationship ( LWR ) in a theoretical approach. The proposed methods were applied using data of a detritivorous fish, Cyphocharax abramoides , monthly sampled using gill nets. Captured individuals were measured, weighed, sexed and the gonadal stage was classified macroscopically and weighed. Estimated L 50 values using the macroscopic identification, GSI approach and LWR were not different from each other considering confidence intervals. Between the three different techniques, we concluded that the analysis of the LWR in fishes with polyphasic growth presented promising results as it only requires length and weight data to be performed and estimate a L 50 within the range of both classical logistic models analysed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".