MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489213800 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511983375.008

Temperature effects on the reproductive performance of fish

2011· book-chapter· en· W1489213800 on OpenAlexaff
Glen Van Der Kraak, N. W. Pankhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Endocrine systemReproductive successPopulationHormoneReproductionJudgementZoologyEcologyPhysiologyEndocrinologyDemographyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists are increasingly being called upon to predict the outcomes of global temperature changes on fish populations. Both reproduction and early development in fish are particularly sensitive to temperature perturbations. Numerous in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that reproductive endocrine homeostasis in fish (Fig. 1) is responsive to changes in temperature. This includes alterations in the secretion and actions of hormones associated with all components of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis which controls reproductive processes. By comparison, far fewer studies have considered the longer term consequences of altered temperature profiles on the reproductive cycle or larval development. Even fewer studies have considered the long-term ecological consequences of multigenerational exposures to elevated thermal regimes. Given the existing data and the need for a rapid response to questions on the outcomes of temperature change, our best informed judgement will have to be based, in large part, on information from short-term assays. This leads to the question of whether current methods of assessing the effects of temperature on the molecular and cellular events mediating reproductive processes can be used to predict effects at whole animal and population levels (Fig. 2).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations208
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207