MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402740689 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2024-0031

Quantifying maternal reproductive output of chondrichthyan fishes

2024· article· en· W4402740689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alastair V. Harry, Ivy E. Baremore, Andrew N. Piercy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChondrichthyesBiologyFisheryReproductionEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the live-bearing and egg-laying class of chondrichthyan fishes a three parameter logistic ‘maternity’ function with a variable upper asymptote, PMax, can be used to predict the average probability of a female giving birth or laying eggs in a season. Although fundamental to calculating the reproductive capacity of a population, few studies report maternity functions, with maturity functions often used as a proxy. Applying logistic models to simulated and empirical data showed that it was feasible to estimate PMax from maternal data and that accuracy, bias, and confidence interval coverage often improved compared to when a fixed value was used. However, sample sizes of 100–200 maternal females were typically required for accurate estimation of PMax. While maturity parameters could be estimated with greater accuracy, substituting them for maternity parameters overestimated lifetime reproductive output. Greater use of maternity functions has the potential to improve calculation of reproductive output in quantitative populations models. In addition to improvements in parameter estimation, this method involves fewer assumptions and enables statistical inferences to be made on frequency of reproduction.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207