Age validation of yellowfin (<i>Thunnus albacares</i>) and bigeye (<i>Thunnus obesus</i>) tuna of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of age and growth of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (Thunnus obesus) tuna remain problematic because validation of growth zone deposition (opaque and translucent) has not been properly evaluated. Otolith growth structure (zone clarity) can be poorly defined for tropical tunas, but the use of bomb radiocarbon dating has validated age estimates to 16–18 years for yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Use of the radiocarbon decline period — defined by regional coral and otoliths — provided valid ages through ontogeny. Yellowfin tuna aged 2–18 years (n = 34, 1029–1810 mm FL) and bigeye tuna aged 3–17 years (n = 12, 1280–1750 mm FL) led to birth years that were coincident with the bomb radiocarbon decline. The results indicate there was no age reading bias for yellowfin tuna and that age estimates of previous studies were likely underestimated for both species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".