MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002144047 · doi:10.1139/f06-176

Modelling feeding, growth, and habitat selection in larval Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>): observations and model predictions in a macrocosm environment

2007· article· en· W2002144047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trond Kristiansen, Øyvind Fiksen, Arild Folkvord

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsGadusPredationBiologyAtlantic codGadidaeLarvaGrowth rateForagingEcologyGrowth modelHabitatZoologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual-based models (IBMs) integrate behavioural, physiological, and developmental features and differences among individuals. Building on previous process-based models, we developed an IBM of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) that included foraging, size-, temperature-, and food-limited growth, and environmental factors such as prey-field, turbulence, and light. Direct comparison between larval fish IBMs and experimental studies is lacking. Using data from a macrocosm study on growth and feeding of larval cod, we forced the model with observed temperature and prey-field and compared model predictions with observed distribution, diet, size-at-age, and specific growth rates. We explored implications of habitat selection rules on predicted growth rates. We analyze the sensitivity of model predictions by the Latin Hypercube Sampling method and individual parameter perturbation. Food limitation prevented larvae from growing at their physiological maximum, especially in the period 5–17 days post hatch (DPH). Active habitat selection had the potential to enhance larval growth rates. The model predicted temperature-limited growth rates for first-feeding larvae (5–20 DPH) when prey density is >5 nauplii·L–1. After age 20 DPH, maximum modelled growth required a diet of copepodites. Simulated growth rates were close to observed values except for the period just after the start of exogenous feeding when prey density was low.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207