MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007025741 · doi:10.1139/f00-165

Seasonal reproduction, multiple spawning, and fecundity in northern krill, <i>Meganyctiphanes norvegica</i>, and Antarctic krill, <i>Euphausia superba</i>

2000· article· en· W2007025741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janine Cuzin‐Roudy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuphausiaKrillEuphausiaceaAntarctic krillBiologyFecundityCrustaceanAllometryZoologyReproductionEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both northern krill, Meganyctiphanes norvegica, and Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, release eggs seasonally in multiple spawning events. Fecundity estimates were determined based on counts of mature oocytes in the ovary of females in preserved field samples. Principal components analysis and allometry were used to analyze the covariation of egg-batch size with female characteristics. In both krill species, egg-batch size scaled isometrically with ovarian weight but showed a positive allometry with body size. Predicted egg-batch size ranged from 200 to 4000 eggs for M. norvegica of 25.5-35 mm body length and from 1500 to 6000 eggs for E. superba of 36-55 mm. Allometric relationships can be used to predict annual fecundity from size structure data of krill populations. In this study, the effect of temperature on the duration of molting and spawning cycles was used to infer a number of reproductive cycles per year, taking into account climate and seasonal variation.

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)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations66
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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