MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7108329934 · doi:10.5683/sp3/ljwgjh

Replication Data for: Effects of body size and environmental region on the nutritional value of small pelagic species in the California Current

2025· dataset· W7108329934 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2025
Typedataset
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelagic zoneRaw dataMetadataRange (aeronautics)BiodiversitySquidEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains all raw nutritional data from calorimetry and proximate composition analysis of small pelagic species in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME) used to undertake analyses for this publication. This manuscript examines nutritional variation across individuals sampled from April - October 2021 for five species: northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens), bigfin lanternfish (Symbolophorus californiensis), boreal clubhook squid (Onychoteuthis borealijaponica), and pyrosomes (Pyrosoma atlanticum). The raw data includes individual energy density, lipid, protein, and moisture content, length, weight, and spatiotemporal information. Column header descriptions are provided in a separate metadata table. This dataset is a part of the Pelagic Species Trait Database (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/0YFJED), which we encourage users to explore for nutritional information from a broader range of species, years, and geographic regions. We ask researchers and students to contact us to discuss applications of this data. Please reach out to (stephanie.green@ualberta.ca) to discuss collaboration opportunities and data integration.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2580.141

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→French-language works237,207→