MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100717529

Conservation Genetics 2: 257–269, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 257 Stability in the historical pattern of genetic structure of Newfoundland

2001· article· en· W7100717529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic structureContext (archaeology)Population geneticsPopulationMicrosatellitePopulation structureSpatial ecologyGenetic variationPhylogeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

otoliths, population structure, spawning fidelity We report on evidence of long term stability in the geographic pattern of genetic differentiation among cod (Gadus morhua) collected from 5 spawning banks off Newfoundland and Labrador over a period spanning three decades (1964–1994) and 2 orders of magnitude of population size variation. Six microsatellite DNA loci amplified from archived otoliths (1964 and 1978) and contemporary (1990s) tissue samples revealed fidelity to natal spawning banks over this period. A two level (spawning bank and decade) hierarchical and multilocus AMOVA indicated that 1.55 % of the total variation in allele frequencies could be attributed (P = 0.036) to spatial structure while no variance component could be attributed to temporal changes. A finer scale analysis among cod from just 3 of these spawning banks reveals, however, evidence consistent with some post-collapse mixing between cod from two banks. In the context of fisheries management and conservation, the survival of the spatial pattern of genetic differentiation during the population collapse suggests that if recovery eventually occurs it will likely be through population re-growth in situ rather than by migratory influx.

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)0.001
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 score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.014

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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