MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237015956 · doi:10.1139/f01-092

Developing Baltic cod recruitment models. I. Resolving spatial and temporal dynamics of spawning stock and recruitment for cod, herring, and sprat

2001· article· en· W4237015956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fritz Köster, Christian Möllmann, Stefan Neuenfeldt, Michael St. John, Maris Plikshs, R. Voss

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research Office
KeywordsSpratGadusClupeaHerringFisheryPopulationStock (firearms)Stock assessmentBiologyBaltic seaFish stockAtlantic codEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyOceanographyFishingFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Baltic Sea comprises a heterogeneous oceanographic environment influencing the spatial and temporal potential for reproductive success of cod (Gadus morhua) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the different spawning basins. Hence, to quantify stock and recruitment dynamics, it is necessary to resolve species-specific regional reproductive success in relation to size, structure, and distribution of the spawning stock. Furthermore, as species and fisheries interactions vary between areas, it is necessary to include these interactions on an area-specific basis. Therefore, area-disaggregated multispecies virtual population analyses (MSVPA) were performed for interacting species cod, herring (Clupea harengus), and sprat in the different subdivisions of the Central Baltic. The MSVPA runs revealed distinct spatial trends in population abundance, spawning biomass, recruitment, and predation-induced mortality. Results, when evaluated with respect to trends in population sizes from research surveys, were similar for the cod and sprat stocks but different for herring. Horizontal distributions from MSVPA runs and research surveys indicate that cod and sprat undergo migrations between basins during different life stages. This is an observation potentially influencing estimates for the different stock components but not affecting the overall stock sizes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→