MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408312363 · doi:10.32942/x2v64z

Rapid widespread declines of an abundant coastal shark

2025· preprint· en· W4408312363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsay N. K. Davidson, Philina A. English, Jacquelynne R. King, Paul B. C. Grant, Ian W. Taylor, Lewis A. K. Barnett, Vladlena Gertseva, Cindy A. Tribuzio, Sean C. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryGeographyBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining population trends is challenging for marine species with transboundary ranges, but increasingly important given the redistribution of species across international borders with climate change. Here, we use spatiotemporal models fit to data from 10 scientific surveys to evaluate trends in biomass, abundance, and distribution for Pacific Spiny Dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) across their entire eastern North Pacific Ocean range. We find a coastwide 51% (95% CI: 38%–61%) decline in Dogfish biomass from 2003–2023. Regional declines were steepest for the US West Coast and Canada: 79% (95% CI: 71%–85%) and 72% (95% CI: 58%–82%), respectively, while Alaskan declines were less steep at 37% (95% CI: 13%–54%). Mature females and immature Dogfish had the largest proportional declines. We find a deepening distribution on the US West Coast and Canada and an increase in the biomass-weighted temperature across most maturity groups on the US West Coast, but these patterns do not explain the overall declines. Contrary to prior hypotheses, we find no clear shift in biomass northward to Alaska. Further work investigating causal mechanisms of the decline is needed.

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)0.002
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207