MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099549129

by

2015· article· en· W7099549129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrimpContinental shelfStock (firearms)Stock assessmentFishingFish stock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) occurs on the continental shelf off West Greenland in NAFO Divisions 0A and 1A-1F in depths between approximately 150 and 600 m. Greenland fishes the species in Subarea 1, Canada in Div. 0A; Canadian regulations set a separate shrimp TAC for the part of this Division lying east of 60°30'W (Canadian SFA 1). The species is assessed in these waters as a single stock and managed by catch control. The fishery has been prosecuted over time by four distinct fleets: Greenland small-vessel inshore; Greenland KGH offshore; Greenland recent offshore, and Canadian offshore. Catches peaked in 1992 at 105 000 tons but then decreased to around 80 000 tons by 1998 owing to management measures. Since then stepwise increases of catch quotas have been accompanied by increased catches. The provisional total catch in 2005, at 138 500 tons, was the highest on record. The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in Greenland waters for 2006 is set at 134 000 tons, and for the Canadian fishery in the eastern part of Div. 0A 18 381 tons; however, Canadian catches in recent years have stayed at little over 6 000 tons in spite of much higher TACs. The inshore fishery prosecuted by vessels below 80 GRT accounts for around 15 % of the landings. Reported discard and by-catch of other species are alike low. Catch and effort data from logbooks was analysed with standard linear models to create fleet-specific series of

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207