MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096901784

L. Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine white hake

2012· article· en· W7096901784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundfishHakeStock (firearms)Stock assessmentPopulationCatch per unit effort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Klein-MacPhee 2002). Depth distribution of white hake varies by age and season; juveniles typically occupy shallower areas than adults, but individuals of all ages tend to move inshore or shoalward in summer, dispersing to deeper areas in winter (Musick 1974; Markel et al. 1982). Small white hake are difficult to distinguish from red hake, Urophycis chuss, resulting in a small degree of bias in reported nominal catches (NEFSC 2005). Larval distributions indicate the presence of two spawning groups in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and Scotian Shelf region, one which spawns in deep water on the continental slope in late winter and early spring, and a second which spawns on the Scotian Shelf in the summer (Fahay and Able 1989; Lang et al. 1994). The population found in U.S. waters appears to be supported by both spawning events, but individuals are not distinguishable in commercial landings. The stock is currently assessed as a single unit in United States waters, although Canadian catch from Georges Bank is included (Figure L1). This stock was last assessed and reviewed at the Groundfish Assessment Review Committee meeting in 2005 (NEFSC 2005). The AIM method was used to assess the status of the stock relative to reference points developed by the Working Group on Re-Evaluation of Biological

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1620.053

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→