On The Results Of Research On Cod And Haddock Target Strength In The Barents And Norwegian Seas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstracts are to be cited without prior reference to the author.The paper presents results of determining dependencies (equations) of cod and haddock target strength (TS) at frequency 38 kHz in natural habitat (in situ) on their length TL obtained by PINRO in the Barents and Norwegian Seas in 1998-2003. To collect and process results of fish target strengths the specially developed software package LTSD100 (Length and Target Strength Distributions) for use with an IBM PC is used. Simultaneously, the analogous data on cod target strength by Norwegian (Foote et al., 1986; Ona, 1991) and Canadian (Rose and Porter; 1996) scientists are given. Based on the comparative analysis of all the data, the conclusion that while conducting trawl-acoustic surveys (TAS) for cod and haddock stocks the highest accuracy should be expected while applying the equation of target strength TS(Cod) = 27.0Log(TL) – 76.7 (r = 0.97; SE = 1.7; n = 301) for cod from 5 - 117 cm size groups and the equation TS(Hdk) = 27.5Log(TL) – 77.1 (r = 0.92; SE = 1.5; n = 27) for haddock from 5 - 55 cm size groups. The both equations differ little from each other for fish from 5 - 60 cm size groups. For this, it should be noticed that there are little obtained data in situ on target strength of haddock < 20 cm and > 55 cm in length. Therefore, to derive equations of target strength including all length groups of these and other fish species, in PINRO the works to determine target strength of cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, blue whiting and other fish species of different size executed in sea cruises (in situ) and at the research stations under the controlled conditions (ex situ) are in progress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".