MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biology of the marbled lungfish, <i>Protopterus aethiopicus</i> Heckel, in Lake Baringo, Kenya

2004· article· en· W2014881107 on OpenAlexaff
Chrisestom Mwatete Mlewa, John M. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Ecology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLungfishBiologySex ratioFecundityMarbled meatReproductionZoologyAestivationMaturity (psychological)PopulationFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryEcologyAnimal scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we provide life history characteristics for an introduced marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) population in Lake Baringo, Kenya, including their length–weight relationship, body condition, fecundity, sex ratio, reproduction and food. These data are compared with those of other populations. Samples were obtained from the commercial fishery between January and October 2001. The lungfish exhibited positive allometric growth, with the length–weight relationship described by the equation: logW = −6.41 + 3.52 logTL. The mean relative condition factor was close to unity, did not vary much between months and was not significantly different between sexes. The overall sex ratio was skewed in favour of females. The size of fish at first maturity was 70–76 cm total length (TL) for females and 82–88 cm TL for males. Fish in maturity stages III–IV occurred in all monthly samples suggesting year round spawning. The marbled lungfish in Lake Baringo is largely piscivorous and its impact on other fishes certainly warrants further research.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of EcologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207