MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409359892 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2024-0261

Life history implications of kinship structure in an Atlantic herring aggregation

2025· article· en· W4409359892 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
James Kho, Gregory R. McCracken, Jenni L. McDermid, Daniel E. Ruzzante

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersFaculty of Graduate Studies, Dalhousie UniversityCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHerringKinshipAtlantic herringFisheryGeographyAtlantic codEcologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>ClupeaGadusAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinship in natural marine fish systems has been little explored especially for very abundant and commercially exploited marine fish with broadcast spawning. Recent advances in genomics have however facilitated an improved understanding of population structure in marine systems at fine geographic scales. Here, we identify kinship structure in an aggregation of Atlantic herring ( Clupea harengus) juveniles. We identified 11 and potentially up to 14 half-sib pairs using a suite of 92 sequenced microsatellite DNA markers in a sample of N = 1391 herring individuals comprising two cohorts (ages 0 + and 1+) collected from the 2018 Fall research survey of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. We discuss the detection of three potential full-sibs in the data by way of association where two individuals are half-sibs to a third but not to each other. This putative full-sib pair was detected in the kinship analysis albeit outside the significance threshold used ( λ* = 12). This study suggests the presence of kinship structure in a juvenile herring aggregation 3 months or more post hatching with implications for our understanding of herring early life history.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207