Geographical differences in marine feeding of Atlantic salmon post‐smolts in Norwegian fjords
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stomach content analyses were conducted on Atlantic salmonSalmo salarpost‐smolt (average size, 119–154 mm fork length,LF) caught in eight large Norwegian fjord systems along a north–south geographical axis during 1998–2001. In general, post‐smolts from southern Norway showed low feeding intensity in the fjords, whereas extensive feeding was observed in fjords in the northern and middle parts of Norway. The marine diet mainly included different crustaceans and in particular marine pelagic fish larvae (sand‐eelsAmmodytesspp., herringClupea harengusand gadoids), but with a substantial spatial and annual variation in prey diversity and feeding intensity. Insects were most frequently taken in the estuary, although fishes often made a large contribution in mass. In contrast, fishes, and to some extent various crustaceans (particularly Hyperiidae, Gammaridae, Euphausiacea and Copepoda) dominated the diet in the middle and outer parts of the fjords, where post‐smolts also fed more extensively than in the inner part. The results indicate that extensive feeding immediately after sea entrance may be more common for post‐smolts in the northern and middle parts of Norway, than in the southern fjords. The observed differences in post‐smolt feeding may be due to spatial and temporal differences in prey availability within and between the different types of fjord systems, and this might influence post‐smolt growth and survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".