NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies, 29: 13–21 Fleming Survey of Demersal Juvenile Cod in Coastal Areas of Eastern Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective during the 1995 study of Fleming survey area was to test for any possible enhanced density of first year demersal juvenile cod resulting from a well docu-mented spawning aggregation in Smith Sound area in April and May of 1995. Enhanced density of juveniles settling to the bottom in suitable coastal habitat was expected about 3– 4 months later, in August and September. The second objective was to compare the abun-dance of identifiable length groups corresponding to ages 0+ 1+ and 2+ cod to the abun-dance of the same length groups in previous years. The survey revisited sites sampled in 1959–64 and 1992–94. The density of first year (0+) demersal juvenile cod (length group 0) did not exceed the average for 1992–94 for the entire survey area (St. Mary's Bay north to Notre Dame Bay). Within this area the density of length group 0 in Trinity and Conception Bay did not exceed that in previous years. The density of second year (1+) juveniles was expected to be higher in 1995 than 1994, based on higher density of the 0-group in 1994 than in 1993. Instead, the numbers of length group 1 fish were the lowest in the 10 year record of comparable counts. Third year (2+) juveniles were expected to be more abundant in 1995 than 1994, again based on strength of that cohort in previous years. Contrary to expectation the density of length group 2 fish was lower in 1995 than 1994. The expected density calculated from cohort strength the prior year assumed no change in performance of gear, and no greater shift of juvenile length group 1 cod into deep water than in previous years. Potential sources of mortality include incidental catch, predation by seals or large cod moving into shallow water.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".