Multidisciplinary examination of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii)population discreteness: the Cherry Point population and theUSAs Endangered Species Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstracts are to be cited without prior reference to the author.Pacific herring that spawn at Cherry Point, near the USA-Canada border, were examined for possible listing under the USA’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a 'distinct population segment' (DPS). Although Cherry Point Pacific herring spawner biomass has more than doubled since 2000, the population biomass has declined by 87% since 1973. This decline led NGOs to petition the National Marine Fisheries Service to list Cherry Point Pacific herring as a protected 'ESA species.' By definition, a DPS, in order to qualify as an ESA species, must be both 'discrete' from other populations and 'significant' to the biological species as a whole. The Cherry Point Pacific herring population has multiple distinguishing characteristics including locally unique spawn timing; an unusual, relatively exposed spawning location; discrete microsatellite DNA allele frequencies; and unusual life history characteristics such as low larval weight and elevated size-at-age. Cherry Point Pacific herring also exhibit differential parasite incidence, otolith microchemistry, and accumulation of toxic contaminants indicative of disparate rearing conditions compared to other local herring populations. These discrete population differences are contrasted with data from other Pacific herring populations, both regionally and rangewide, in order to evaluate the 'significance' of the Cherry Point Pacific herring population to the species as a whole, and therefore whether it meets the management definition of a distinct population segment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".