Changes in scale circulus spacings of an endangered Atlantic salmon <i>Salmo salar </i>population: evidence of a shift in marine migration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post‐smolt scale circulus spacing patterns for two Atlantic salmon Salmo salar populations from the Southern Upland (SU) of Nova Scotia, Canada, were compared with spacings from two endangered populations from the inner Bay of Fundy (iBoF) Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, to determine if growth patterns differed among these populations, and if growth patterns had changed as the abundance of these populations declined. An analysis of numbers of marine circuli from scales of post‐smolts and one‐sea‐winter adults of known age indicated that circuli were deposited at a rate of about one circulus per week in summer and slowed to one every 2 weeks in winter. During the summer and the autumn, mean circulus spacing in the iBoF populations, known to have occupied the outer Bay of Fundy during these seasons, was lower than in the SU populations, which are known to migrate to the North Atlantic. Similar circulus spacing patterns within SU populations is suggestive of a common marine distribution for these populations. In contrast, a cluster analysis revealed that within the geographically intermediate Big Salmon River (iBoF), some individuals exhibited wider spacing patterns that resemble the distant migrating SU populations, while others exhibited narrower spacing similar to other iBoF S. salar. Within the Big Salmon River, the relative abundance of the wider and the narrower spacing patterns varied in the earlier years, but all fish sampled since 1999, exhibited wider spacings similar to distant migrating SU S. salar. The apparent disappearance of the narrower pattern, characteristic of localized migration and indicative of historical iBoF populations, suggests that local migration may not presently be a successful strategy for these populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".