MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994988219 · doi:10.1577/t04-165.1

Comparison of Solution‐Based versus Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Analysis of Larval Fish Otolith Microelemental Composition

2006· article· en· W1994988219 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stuart A. Ludsin, Brian J. Fryer, Joel E. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsOtolithInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryLaser ablationEnvironmental scienceStrontiumChemistryMass spectrometryEnvironmental chemistryFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBiologyChromatographyLaserPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Otolith microchemistry has become a widely used tool for fisheries‐based research in marine systems. However, its application to systems without well‐defined juvenile nursery areas in which distinct otolith elemental signatures can develop (i.e., most freshwater systems) remains limited. In large part, this deficiency is due to unsuitable protocols for reliably processing and analyzing small otoliths of larvae. Herein, we evaluate the abilities of solution‐based (SO) and laser ablation (LA) inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) to quantify the otolith elemental composition of larval yellow perch Perca flavescens captured in three distinct spawning locations in Lake Erie (USA–Canada). Analysis of otolith pairs by each technique demonstrated that both SO‐ and LA‐ICPMS could be used to reliably quantify the more abundant elements, such as Sr and Ba. Magnesium and zinc, analyzed by use of both SO‐ and LA‐ICPMS, also met the criteria for inclusion in our analyses (i.e., the coefficients of variation of standards were <10.5%, and over 90% of samples were above detection limits at a single location). Upon closer inspection of the data, however, we found that estimates of Mg and Zn were only reliable for LA‐ICPMS. Estimates of these two elements using SO‐ICPMS were unrealistically high, probably owing to contamination during the otolith dissolution and handling phases. We also found that LA‐ICPMS provided more precise estimates than did SO‐ICPMS for nearly all elements explored, but LA‐ICPMS was somewhat limited by high limits of detection for some elements. Despite these differences, both techniques could accurately discriminate among larvae produced in different Lake Erie spawning locations, primarily because of the significant variation in Sr among larval otoliths. Ultimately, although both methods are appropriate for analysis of otoliths from larvae, we recommend the use of LA‐ICPMS in future otolith microchemical applications involving larvae.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations94
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207