MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991876271 · doi:10.1577/t03-098.1

Evaluation of Endocrine Indices of Growth in Individual Postsmolt Coho Salmon

2004· article· en· W1991876271 on OpenAlexaff
Brian R. Beckman, William T. Fairgrieve, Kathleen A. Cooper, Conrad V. W. Mahnken, Richard J. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationJoint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
KeywordsOncorhynchusJuvenileBiologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Insulin-like growth factorEndocrine systemGrowth hormoneAnimal scienceEndocrinologyGrowth factorHormoneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plasma levels of the hormones insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) were assessed as indices of growth for individual juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Smolts were tagged in April, introduced to seawater in May, and reared at two different feeding levels. Fish lengths and weights were obtained in June, August, September, and November. Plasma samples were obtained in September and November. There was a consistent, robust relation (over both feeding rates and sampling dates) between plasma IGF-I and the instantaneous growth in length of individual fish when growth was measured over a 6-week period. There was no consistent association between plasma insulin level and growth, size, or condition factor. Plasma IGF-I levels were also measured in postsmolt coho salmon captured in September from the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and were found to be similar to those in laboratory fish.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207