Fish growth and degree-days I: selecting a base temperature for a within-population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degree-days (DD) are an increasingly popular method for explaining variation in fish growth and development. By including a base temperature (T o ) the DD formula limits calculations to temperatures that are relevant to growth. However, our review of growth studies shows multiple T o values in use for a given fish species. To determine how T o affects the ability of DD to explain within-population growth variation, we first show that the ability of DD to describe a growing season is robust to low values of T o . We then analyze immature length data from eight species and 85 water bodies in North America to show that there is a broad range of T o values that effectively explain growth variation. Based on these results, we argue that precise T o estimates are unwarranted for most single-population studies and recommend standard T o values (0, 5, 10, 15 °C). Standardization facilitates comparative studies and promotes the use of DD in future research. To this end, we provide equations for converting annual DD at a given T o to annual DD at a standard T o .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".