Performance Differences between Two Endemic Stocks of Largemouth Bass in South Carolina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A common-garden experiment was conducted to compare growth of two stocks of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, one from the Coastal Plain and one from the Piedmont region of South Carolina. An equal number of fish from each stock were released at age 0 in Lake Paul Wallace, a 113-ha municipal impoundment in South Carolina's Coastal Plain. Boat electrofishing during spring was used to sample the population at ages 1, 3, and 4. Relative survival, mean length and weight, weight frequency distributions, and weight–length relationships were compared between stocks. The Piedmont stock was significantly larger at age 1, whereas the Coastal Plain stock was larger at ages 3 and 4. The weight frequency distributions differed between stocks, as did the weight–length relationships. The total catch for each stock was not proportionally different from stocking rates at age 1. However, the catch of the Coastal Plain stock was significantly higher at ages 3 and 4, suggesting better survival to those ages. We conclude that these two endemic stocks exhibited different performance at one study site in the Coastal Plain. Further evaluations across regions are needed to better define the performance of these two stocks of largemouth bass and ascertain appropriate stocking regions for each stock.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".