MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391475552 · doi:10.5962/p.363481

A review of the status of the Atlantic Wolffish, Anarhichas lupus, in Canada

2002· review· en· W4391475552 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Niall O’Dea, Richard L. Haedrich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsSystemic lupus erythematosusZoologyFisheryGeographyBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Atlantic Wolffish, Anarhichas lupus Linneaus, 1758, is a large blenny-like marine fish found in moderately deep and cold waters of the North Atlantic on rocky and hard bottoms from the Gulf of Maine to northwestern France.Wolffish was once the target of a directed fishery, but is not at present; nonetheless, it continues to be taken incidentally as by-catch in the trawl fishery.In Canadian waters, it has been most abundant off Newfoundland and Labrador, where it is a characteristic member of the deep cold-water fish assemblage on the continental shelf, but its numbers there, as indicated by scientific surveys, declined by 91% between 1978 and 1994.In other Canadian areas, where wolffish abundance has historically been lower by about an order of magnitude, populations appear stable.Wolffish are relatively sedentary and slow-growing.They make nests, and guard their large eggs.They feed mostly on bottom invertebrates.Life histories and distribution patterns can vary considerably across the species's range.Aggressive trawl fisheries, now in abeyance by the imposition of widespread moritoriums, appear to have had an impact on wolffish numbers.In the Newfoundland region, numbers have declined steadily in scientific surveys, the number of locations where the species occurs is fewer, the range where abundant appears to be shrinking, and the mean size has decreased so that mature individuals have become relatively rare.Slow growth, fidelity and inshore nesting habit, and limited dispersal make rescue unlikely, and bottom trawling and dredging have probably damaged habitat.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→