Photoperiod and temperature effects on gametogenesis in winter flounder <i>Pseudopleuronectes americanus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The winter flounder is an in‐shore flatfish living in shallow waters on the east coast of North America from Labrador to Georgia. In the St Lawrence estuary, the reproductive season is May and June. Our objective was to test the effects of winter‐spring photoperiod and temperature conditions on the timing of sexual maturation in both males and females. Groups (16 animals each) of winter flounder breeders were maintained from mid‐January to mid‐May under five different experimental conditions: (1) natural photoperiod and temperature conditions; (2) natural photoperiod, 6° C; (3) 15L : 9D, natural temperature conditions; (4) 15L : 9D, 6° C; (5) accelerated photoperiod increase from winter to spring conditions, 6° C. Natural photoperiod and temperature conditions correspond to a gradual increase in light period from 8L : 16D (January) to 15L : 9D (May) and in temperature from −1° C (January to April) to 6° C (May). GSI and condition factor did not differ among the treatments (P > 0·05). In males, milt production occurred simultaneously in the different treatments and histological examination did not indicate any significant effect of either photoperiod or temperature on testes development. In females, seven stages of oocyte development were observed. Both the number of oocytes at the cortical alveoli stage and number of atretic oocytes increased at 6° C (warm temperature conditions). Overall, neither photoperiod nor temperature modified the reproductive period. Warm winter‐spring temperature conditions, however, may decrease egg numbers and egg quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".