Persistent differences in recruitment variability among co-occurring North Atlantic groundfish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of recruitment and its variability in marine fish populations contributes to sustainable fisheries but a full understanding remains elusive. An earlier study showed that haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) stocks exhibited consistently higher variability and lower reproductive rates compared to cod (Gadus morhua) stocks in the geographic regions where they co-occurred. Thus, cod may have a higher resilience to overexploitation, whereas haddock stocks may be more likely to be rescued by chance strong recruitments events. Since that initial study, the ecosystems and stocks have experienced large structural and functional changes, as well as changes in management practice and ocean warming. Here, we updated the previous earlier analysis with new data and found that despite large changes in the ecosystems explored, the patterns of recruitment variability have persisted. Recruitment variability remains higher in haddock than in cod, and the maximum annual reproduction rate at low spawning stock biomass (SSB) remains higher in cod than in haddock, although the latter difference is now less pronounced. Despite the economic and ecological importance of cod and haddock, and their long history of scientific scrutiny, the persistent difference in their reproductive biology remains unexplained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".