MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of delayed fertilization on embryo viability in walleye <i>Sander vitreus </i>(Mitchill): the role of maternal effects

2008· article· en· W1988855188 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas A. Johnston, Scott D. Kaufman, M. D. Moles, Murray D. Wiegand, William C. Leggett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of GuelphLaurentian UniversityQueen's UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman fertilizationBiologySanderEmbryoIncubationFish measurementEmbryogenesisZoologyAndrologyFisheryAnatomyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of delayed fertilization on embryonic viability in walleye Sander vitreus were examined using laboratory fertilization and incubation trials. Both fertilization success (survival to 10 h post‐fertilization) and embryonic survival (from 10 to 168 h post‐fertilization) generally declined with increasing ova storage time but trends varied significantly among females. Embryonic survival of individual egg batches was positively related to fertilization success. The slope of the relationship between fertilization success and ova storage time was negatively related to maternal fork length indicating that ova quality declined more rapidly with storage time for larger females than for smaller females. In contrast, the slope of the early embryonic survival v. ova storage time relationship was not significantly related to maternal size.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207