MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902795547 · doi:10.7289/v5/tm-afsc-342

Genetic stock composition analysis of the Chinook salmon bycatch from the 2015 Bering Sea walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) trawl fishery.

2017· article· en· W6902795547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - NOAA Central Library · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windPollockBycatchStock (firearms)PeninsulaFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A genetic analysis of samples from the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) bycatch of the 2015 Bering Sea-Aleutian Island (BSAI) trawl fishery for walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) was undertaken to determine the overall stock composition of the bycatch. Samples were genotyped for 43 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) DNA markers and results were estimated using the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) SNP baseline. In 2015, genetic samples from the Bering Sea were collected using a systematic random sampling protocol where one out of every 10 Chinook salmon encountered was sampled. Based on the analysis of 1,757 Chinook salmon bycatch samples collected throughout the 2015 BSAI walleye pollock trawl fishery, Coastal Western Alaska stocks dominated the sample set (40%) with smaller contributions from British Columbia (22%), West Coast U.S. (WA/OR/CA) (15%), and North Alaska Peninsula (11%) stocks. Analysis of temporal groupings within the pollock "A" and "B" seasons revealed changes in stock composition during the course of the year with lower contributions of Coastal Western Alaska, North Alaska Peninsula, and Upper Yukon stocks and higher contributions of West Coast U.S. (WA/OR/CA), British Columbia, NW Gulf of Alaska, and Coastal Southeast Alaska stocks during the "B" season.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - NOAA Central LibrarySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207