MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400900594 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2024.0674

Deep antiquity of seagrasses supporting European eel fisheries in the western Baltic

2024· article· en· W4400900594 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Guiry, Harry K. Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsSeagrassHistorical ecologyContext (archaeology)GeographyHabitatFisheryMesolithicForagingEcologyEcosystemClimate changeArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protecting ocean habitats is critical for international efforts to mitigate climate impacts and ensure food security, but the ecological data upon which policy makers base conservation and restoration targets often reflect ecosystems that have already been deeply impacted by anthropogenic change. The archaeological record is a biomolecular archive offering a temporal scope that cannot be gathered from historical records or contemporary fieldwork. Insights from biogeochemical and osteometric analyses of fish bones, combined with context from contemporary field studies, show how prehistoric fisheries in the western Baltic relied on seagrass meadows. European eels ( Anguilla anguilla ) harvested by Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples over millennia showed a strong fidelity for eelgrass foraging habitats, an ecological relationship that remains largely overlooked today, demonstrating the value of protecting these habitats. These data open new windows onto ecosystem- and species-level behaviours, highlighting the need for wider incorporation of archaeological data in strategies for protecting our oceans.

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)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→