MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1834812801 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2012-0466

Predation by a visual planktivore perch (<i>Perca fluviatilis</i>) in a turbulent and turbid environment

2013· article· en· W1834812801 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeynep Pekcan‐Hekim, Laura Joensuu, Jukka Horppila

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsPerchForagingPlanktivoreTurbidityPredationZooplanktonBiologyTurbulenceMidgeFisheryAnimal scienceEcologyLarvaFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental sciencePhytoplanktonNutrientGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turbulence and turbidity are thought to independently affect the foraging success of fish, but little is known about their interactive effects on the feeding of fish larger than a few centimetres. We experimentally tested for this interaction on the feeding of planktivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis). There was an interactive effect of root mean square (RMS) velocity (0, 1.3, 2.7, 5.5, and 18.3 cm·s −1 ) and turbidity (0, 30, and 60 nephelometric turbidity units; NTU) on perch feeding on phantom midge larvae (Chaoborus flavicans). In the 0 and 60 NTU conditions, there was no significant change in the feeding efficiency of perch. However, at 30 NTU, increasing turbulence enhanced perch feeding by increasing encounter rates and disabling the prey escape response. The proportion of encountered Chaoborus larvae that were consumed showed a linear decline with increasing turbulence under clear and 30 NTU conditions and a dome-shaped response under 60 NTU. The results indicate that turbulence has a strong effect on the post-encounter stages of the foraging cycle.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→