MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seasonal growth of Atlantic cod: effects of temperature, feeding and reproduction

2005· article· en· W1964024408 on OpenAlexaffabout
L.G.S. Mello, George A. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadusCapelinBiologyGadidaeAtlantic codDemersal zoneFisheryBayLimitingReproductionDemersal fishAnimal scienceEcologyPelagic zoneFish <Actinopterygii>Oceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth of 2659 Atlantic cod Gadus morhua aged 4 to 9 years examined in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, peaked in most cases in June and was at a minimum in October or November. Water temperature, partial fullness index ( I P ) and gonado‐somatic index ( I G ) explained between 31 and 52% of the monthly variability in growth. Temperature and I P of capelin Mallotus villosus had significant effects on growth of all age groups and explained most of the variance for ages 6–8 and 4–5 years, respectively. The I P of large invertebrates (ages 4 to 7 years), sandlance ( Ammodytes sp. age 6 years) and demersal fishes (age 9 years) had age‐specific effects in the model. Overall, amphipods, decapods and echinoderms dominated the Atlantic cod diet in most seasons, but fish consumption by Atlantic cod was high in June and July, particularly on capelin. The rapid increase in somatic mass during June and July occurred despite cold water temperatures ( &lt; 3° C at 50 m) and moderate to high gonado‐somatic index. The findings of this study suggest that when food was not a limiting factor, growth tended to increase even when Atlantic cod occupied colder waters, but when food was limiting, the opposite may have occured.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207