MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997924732 · doi:10.1139/f05-057

A continuum of life history tactics in a brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>) population

2005· article· en· W1997924732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julien Cucherousset, Dominique Ombredane, Katia Charles, Frédéric Marchand, Jean-Luc Baglinière

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoJuvenileBrown troutLife historyFisheryLife history theoryPopulationTroutSalmonidaeGeographyEcologyBiologyDemographyFish <Actinopterygii>Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life history tactics of the brown trout (Salmo trutta) population of the Oir River (Normandy, France) were studied using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging data of five consecutive cohorts (5900 individuals) monitored between 1995 and 2002. Results demonstrate that (i) life history traits vary among cohorts, chiefly caused by environmental variability, (ii) juvenile growth, particularly second-year growth, plays an important role in the determination of the growing environment and trout exhibit variable migratory behaviour (from remaining in the natal brook to migrating in the sea) related to their juvenile growth rate, and (iii) the description of life history tactics (including juvenile growth, fine-scale migratory behaviour, and reproduction) can be clarified. Tactics are expressed along a continuum in time (age to reproduce) and space (distance of migration). Flexible life history tactics varying with juvenile growth is consistent with previous studies, but the use of empiric data on growth and migration from PIT tagging allows refining the description of life history tactics, taking into account their continuous distribution in time and space.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations110
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207