MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097988643

The Fishery The U.S. nominal catch is taken from both the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine regions. Canadian

2010· article· en· W7097988643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingStock (firearms)Stock assessmentCatch per unit effortFish stockEscapement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, are assessed as a unit stock from the Gulf of Maine southward. An analytical assessment was last conducted for this species in 1999 (Wigley et al.1999) and reviewed at SAW 29 (NEFSC 1999). The SAW 29 assessment indicated average fishing mortality (ages 7-9, unweighted) increased from 0.21 in 1982 to 0.59 in 1985, declined to 0.24 in 1990, increased to 0.86 in 1996, then declined to 0.37 in 1998. Mean 3+ biomass declined steadily from 27,930 mt in 1982 to 7,742 mt in 1994, then sharply increased to 18,934 mt by 1998. Spawning stock biomass declined from 18,000 tons in 1982 to about 4,000 tons in 1993 and then increased sharply to 8,600 mt in 1998. Since 1982, recruitment at age 3 has ranged from approximately 3 million fish (1984 year class) to 38 million fish (1996 year class) with a mean of 14 million fish. This report updates catch in 1999-2001, survey indices through spring 2002, estimates 2001 fishing mortality and 2002 spawning stock biomass, and provides projections of median landings and spawning stock biomass for two fishing mortality scenarios. Sensitivity analyses of assessment results were conducted to evaluate the impact of mis-marked survey trawl wires and the selection of survey tuning indices.

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)0.001
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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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