Energy expenditures during spawning by chum salmon <i>Oncorhynchus keta</i> (Walbaum) in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological telemetry and proximate tissue analyses were used to assess energy expended by chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta on various behaviours during spawning in Kanaka Creek, British Columbia, Canada, and results were compared with published data on Fraser River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, the only other species for which both types of measurements have been taken. Chum salmon arrived at the spawning grounds with body energy densities of 4·84 MJ kg−1 in males and 4·62 MJ kg−1 in females, lower than most sockeye salmon populations, and died with energy densities of c. 4 MJ kg−1, similar to that observed in sockeye salmon and other salmonids. Moisture levels generally increased in body tissues over the spawning life, particularly in female gonads, and lipid levels decreased. Declines in protein observed over the spawning life of other Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus sp. were less evident in Kanaka Creek chum salmon. Holding behaviour constituted the dominant component of the activity schedule and energy budget of both sexes. After holding, the most expensive behaviours were nest digging in females and aggressive displays in males. Dominant males expended the most energy on behaviours each day, as indexed by oxygen consumption (3600 mgO2 kg−1), while satellite males expended nearly as much (3504 mgO2 kg−1) but females expended considerably less (2327 mgO2 kg−1). Kanaka chum salmon engaged more frequently in energetically expensive reproductive behaviours than Stuart River sockeye salmon.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".