MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413939374 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaf155

The genomic consequences of fisheries collapse in a marine fish

2025· article· en· W4413939374 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Lisette Delgado, Mallory Van Wyngaarden, Anthony L. Einfeldt, Gregory R. McCracken, Ian G. Paterson, Corey J. Morris, Ian Bradbury, Paul Bentzen, Daniel E. Ruzzante

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundOcean Frontier InstituteFisheries and Oceans CanadaMitacsAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Marine fishEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The loss of genetic diversity during a population collapse may have important implications for fisheries management and conservation. However, the identification of the underlying changes to genetic diversity can be challenging. The 1990s collapse of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) fishery in the northwest Atlantic, which included the largest population complex known as Northern Cod, raised questions regarding the potential biological consequences for the stock’s genetic diversity. Using low-coverage whole genome sequencing (lcWGS) on collections from the 1990s and 2010s, we detected a decline in genetic diversity of Atlantic cod in the Canadian portion of the species range. A comparison between 1990s and 2010s collections showed less variation in the 2010s, fewer distinguishable genetic clusters, and a significantly lower genetic diversity in the contemporary populations. Our results demonstrate a loss in genetic diversity at the population and individual levels following the fishery collapse and indicate that genetic diversity can be lost even in numerically large populations.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207