MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161144262 · doi:10.1002/mcf2.10150

Increasing Occurrence of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna on Atlantic Herring Spawning Grounds: A Signal of Escalating Pelagic Predator–Prey Interaction?

2021· article· en· W3161144262 on OpenAlexafffund
François Turcotte, Jenni L. McDermid, Tyler D. Tunney, Alex Hanke

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Coastal Fisheries · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsTunaFisheryClupeaHerringPelagic zonePredationAtlantic herringBiologyThunnusForage fishEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predation can be a significant source of natural mortality for small pelagic fish species, rivaling or exceeding fishery removals. Failure to account for changes in natural mortality can introduce uncertainty in the assessment and management of these stocks. In this study, a 10-year span of hydroacoustic data was used to detect Bluefin Tuna Thunnus thynnus on two major fall spawning grounds of Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus, an economically and ecologically valuable forage fish species in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (sGSL). Average Bluefin Tuna detections increased 22-fold from 2002 to 2012 on both spawning grounds independently of Atlantic Herring density or aggregation size. This increase is directionally consistent but larger than changes in other Bluefin Tuna population indices. Preliminary estimates of annual Atlantic Herring consumption doubled across the time series, reaching values of 4,300–20,000 metric tons in recent years. This would suggest that Bluefin Tuna are among the most important consumers of Atlantic Herring in the sGSL. These findings are key for an ecosystem-based approach to the assessment and management of both Atlantic Herring and Bluefin Tuna in the sGSL.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Coastal FisheriesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207