MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1997293919 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2012-0352

Homing behaviour of Atlantic salmon (S<i>almo salar</i>) during final phase of marine migration and river entry

2013· article· en· W1997293919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Grimsrud Davidsen, Audun H. Rikardsen, Eva B. Thorstad, Elina Halttunen, Hiromichi Mitamura, Kim Præbel, Jofrid Skarðhamar, Tor F. Næsje

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiel vertical migrationFjordHoming (biology)SalmoEstuaryOceanographyFish migrationFisheryPlanktonZooplanktonEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>GeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about Atlantic salmon behaviour during the last phase of the marine homing migration and subsequent river entry. In this study, 56 adult Atlantic salmon in the Alta Fjord in northern Norway were equipped with acoustic transmitters. Salmon generally followed the coastline, but their horizontal distribution was also affected by wind-induced spreading of river water across the fjord. Mean swimming depth was shallow (2.5–0.5 m), but with dives down to 30 m depth. Timing of river entry was not affected by river flow, diel periodicity, or tidal cycles. Movements during the last part of the marine migration and river entry were unidirectional and relatively fast (mean 9.7 km·day−1). However, migratory speed slowed as salmon approached the estuary, with a significantly lower speed in the innermost part of the estuary than in the open fjord. Migration behaviour seemed not to be affected by handling and tagging, as there were no behavioural differences between newly tagged fish and those captured and tagged 1 year before their homing migration.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→