MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964444218 · doi:10.1093/plankt/fbq096

The effects of an experimental freshwater cage aquaculture operation on Mysis diluviana

2010· article· en· W1964444218 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Paterson, Cheryl L. Podemski, Laurie J. Wesson, Alan P. Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plankton Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsHypolimnionMysidaceaEnvironmental scienceRainbow troutFisheryHydrobiologyNutrientEcologyOceanographyCrustaceanFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEutrophicationGeologyAquatic environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We utilized 7 years of data to determine the influence of decreased concentrations of hypolimnetic oxygen and increased densities of phytoplankton and fish on the mysid Mysis diluviana in a whole-lake experiment on the effects of cage aquaculture for rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss). Following establishment of the cage farm in 2003, densities of Mysis decreased from an annual average of 85 m−2 (2002–2005) to 7 m−2 in 2007–2008. This decline was strongly correlated with decreasing concentrations of hypolimnetic oxygen. Spatially, Mysis were restricted to stations overlying bottom waters with temperatures colder than 12°C and oxygen concentrations >1 mg L−1 so that Mysis occupied a progressively smaller fraction of the lake as O2 declined in the hypolimnion. In a nearby reference lake, Mysis densities varied considerably among years (27–112 m−2), but never fell as low as in the experimental lake. Mysis growth rates did not vary between the reference lake and the experimental lake. Our results indicate that declines in hypolimnetic oxygen associated with nutrient enrichment can have severe impacts on populations of Mysis.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plankton ResearchSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207