MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393064663 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2023-0220

Estimating fish production in wetlands

2024· article· en· W4393064663 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caroline M. Tucker, Henrique C. Giacomini, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Lifei Wang, Derrick T. de Kerckhove

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceProduction (economics)EcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fish production integrates changes in biomass from growth, reproduction, and mortality, and is a useful indicator for fisheries management. However, calculation of fish production has been limited by the intensive requirements for data on abundance, biomass, age structure, and vital rates, and so it is uncommon to find estimates of fish production for wetlands. We developed an approach to directly estimate production that is suitable for data-limited systems: a continuous time model of production describing individual growth over short time intervals with continuous time models of abundance and biomass over longer timescales. We applied this model for 18 Great Lakes coastal wetlands (GLCWs) on Lake Ontario, including Big Island Wetland (BIW). In BIW, most species were dominated in abundance and biomass by younger cohorts and, as a result, these young, fast-growing individuals contributed disproportionately to fish production. In total, BIW produced 336.1 kg·ha·year of fish and the other 17 neighbouring ranged between 447.7 and 1119.9 kg·ha·year. These are some of the first estimates of fish production for GLCWs, highlighting their value for managing Great Lakes fisheries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→