MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1740446644 · doi:10.1139/f2011-111

Quantifying importance of marine prey in the diets of two partially anadromous fishes

2011· article· en· W1740446644 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heidi K. Swanson, Karen A. Kidd, James D. Reist

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalvelinusFish migrationArctic charTroutArcticPelagic zonePopulationFisheryEcologyBiologyPredationSalmonidaeCoregonusProductivityEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of marine prey sources for partially anadromous fishes has received little study and is complicated by considerable plasticity in life history. We determined proportional contributions of marine, freshwater benthic, and freshwater pelagic prey to anadromous and resident Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from several partially anadromous populations in the Canadian Arctic. Bayesian mixing models (MixSIR) applied to δ 34 S and δ 13 C ratios in lake-specific models indicated that marine prey accounted for 90%–91% of anadromous Arctic char diet and 60%–66% of anadromous lake trout diet. When these estimates were combined with proportion of anadromous individuals in partially anadromous populations, marine food sources accounted for 31%–44% of Arctic char population productivity and 16%–26% of lake trout population productivity. Although future research is needed to refine and quantify variability around these estimates, our results will allow better predictions of the effects of anthropogenic stressors on partially anadromous fishes.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207