MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246004276 · doi:10.7755/fb.118.1.3

Updated reproductive parameters for the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the North Atlantic Ocean with inferences of distribution by sex and reproductive stage

2020· article· en· W4246004276 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa J. Natanson, Megan V. Winton, Heather D. Bowlby, Warren Joyce, Bethany Deacy, Rui Coelho, Daniela Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueFishery Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloEuropean Commission
KeywordsFisheryStage (stratigraphy)Distribution (mathematics)BiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prompted by recent concern about the stock status of the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the North Atlantic Ocean, we examined reproductive data from 731 individuals (351 females and 380 males) collected by 3 scientific organizations to improve estimates of size and age at maturity. Males ranged in size from 70 to 283 cm fork length (FL) and females from 71 to 338 cm FL. Females matured between 263 and 291 cm FL, with an estimated median length at maturity (L50) of 280 cm FL and a median weight at maturity (WT50) of 275 kg. Males matured between 173 and 187 cm FL, with an L50 of 182 cm FL and WT50 of 64 kg. Catch records from 4 international programs were also examined to investigate spatiotemporal variation in the distribution of life history stages based on updated size-at-maturity estimates and to identify potential parturition and nursery grounds. These records identified the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern North Atlantic Ocean off Portugal as birthing and nursery areas, with the most important nursery area occurring in the western North Atlantic Ocean.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFishery BulletinSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207