MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415558400 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaf188

Interannual variability in the length–weight relationship can disrupt the abundance–biomass correlation of sea scallop ( <i>Placopecten magellanicus</i> )

2025· article· en· W4415558400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathan E. Hebert, Jessica A. Sameoto, David Keith, Orla Murphy, Craig J. Brown, Joanna Mills Flemming

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityBedford Institute of Oceanography
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScallopBayStock (firearms)Biomass (ecology)Climate changeStock assessmentRegime shiftAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fisheries stock assessments often rely on biomass estimates derived from abundance-at-length data and an assumed length–weight relationship (LWR) to establish stock status, which, relative to reference points, informs decisions on harvest rates. While biomass is typically assumed to reflect stock abundance, this assumption can be challenged by abrupt and sustained shifts in the body size of individuals within a stock, such as those arising from environmentally driven changes in the LWR. In the Bay of Fundy, Canada, the sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) has recently shown significant interannual variation in its LWR, with corresponding fluctuations in biomass. Using four spatio-temporal generalized additive mixed models, we explore the influence of spatio-temporal and environmental factors on the LWR, shell heights (i.e. size), abundance, and biomass of scallops in the Bay of Fundy, from 2011 to 2023. Results demonstrate that there was a significant shift in the LWR in 2023, which resulted in a large biomass increase (82%), despite only modest increases in shell heights (2%) and abundance (7%). Annual shifts in LWRs can therefore affect the correlation between abundance and biomass. We discuss the broader implications of this finding for stock assessments that depend on a LWR, particularly in the context of climate change and increased volatility in environmental conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207