Reply to Buckley et al.s "Comment: Larval Atlantic cod and haddock growth models, metabolism, ingestion, and temperature effects"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reexamining recent modeling work on Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) larvae, Buckley et al.1 conclude that the procedure used in Laurence (1985) to calculate daily metabolic rates may have been incorrect. Buckley et al. suggest that the actual daily metabolic rates should be nearly three times higher for both Atlantic cod and haddock. At the same time, they also point out that total assimilation may be much higher (70% rather than <50%) based on more recent data, including laboratory experiments conducted on larval fish of other species (Kiorboe et al. 1987; Wieser and Medgyesy 1990; Letcher et al. 1996). Besides these points, Buckley et al. suggest that the value of Qa, a temperature-dependent “overall” assimilation term used by Leising and Franks (1999), was unrealistically high (we used a value of 1.6). Instead, Buckley et al. suggest that this value should be closer to 1.07–1.14 based on their analysis of data from several experiments on other species of fish. At the time of creation of our model (Leising and Franks 1999), we used our best estimates of these parameters. However, in light of Buckley et al.’s arguments, we agree that their estimates for these parameters may be more appropriate for Atlantic cod and haddock larvae. We therefore reran our model for Atlantic cod only using their suggested parameters to determine the impact on our model results, with specific attention to the effects of temperature versus food availability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".