MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922716718 · doi:10.1139/f2012-005

Timing of smolt migration in sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>), brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>), and Arctic char (<i>Salvelinus alpinus</i>)

2012· article· en· W1922716718 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arne J. Jensen, Bengt Finstad, Peder Fiske, Nils Arne Hvidsten, Audun H. Rikardsen, Laila M. Saksgård

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk institutt for naturforskning
KeywordsSalmoSalvelinusArctic charBrown troutSympatric speciationBiologySalmonidaeFisheryTroutArcticEcologyHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study over a 22-year period of first-time migrants (smolts) of three sympatric salmonids (Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ), brown trout ( Salmo trutta ), and Arctic char ( Salvelinus alpinus )) in a watercourse in northern Norway demonstrated that although there was considerable overlap in smolt migration timing among the species, Atlantic salmon migrated first, followed by Arctic char, and finally brown trout. The migration period of Arctic char had a smaller range and less annual variation than those of the two other species, possibly partly related to their more lake-dwelling habitat preference. For all species, water flow was important in explaining day-to-day variations in smolt runs. Water flow was most important for brown trout, change in flow for Atlantic salmon, whereas photoperiod was most important for Arctic char. These results suggest that both age and size of smolts and the timing of the smolt migration have been shaped by the different habitat preferences of these species both in fresh water and sea through local selection.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations77
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207