MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996316485 · doi:10.1139/f05-163

Light intensity, salinity, and host velocity influence presettlement intensity and distribution on hosts by copepodids of sea lice,<i>Lepeophtheirus salmonis</i>

2005· article· en· W1996316485 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Luigi Genna, W. Mordue, A. W. Pike, A. J. Mordue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsLepeophtheirusBiologySalmoSalinityCrustaceanHost (biology)Light intensityLarvaFlumeGillEcologyZoologyOceanographyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intensity and distribution of presettlement by the copepodid of the sea louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, on smolts of its host Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, were quantified for 27 infection regimes under controlled flume conditions. Each infection regime represented a level of interaction between three levels (low, medium, high) of the physical factors of light (10, 300, 800 lx), salinity (20‰, 27‰, 35‰), and host velocity (0.2, 7.0, 15.0 cm·s –1 ). Light, salinity, and host velocity independently and interactively determined the distribution and number of presettled copepodids on hosts. Host surface area also influenced the number of attached preestablished copepodids. The distribution of presettled copepodids on the host body surface closely corresponded to that of settled copepodids and chalimi reported from other studies, with the greatest levels observed on the fins, in particular the dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins. Copepodid presettlement occurred on the gills under all conditions. Differential presettlement, not selective mortality, probably produces the distribution pattern of settled stages seen in other studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207