MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017163646 · doi:10.1139/f05-120

Genetic influence of parr versus anadromous sires on the life histories of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)

2005· article· en· W2017163646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Duston, Tess Astatkie, P. F. MacIsaac

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSireSexual maturitySalmoFish migrationAnimal scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential for sire size to influence life history patterns from fry to sea age at maturity was established by rearing individually identified half-sibs of a single dam and either small (parr) or large (anadromous) sires in a common tank environment. Male sexual maturity was higher among progeny of small versus large sires at both parr (age 0+, 50% versus 32%, p = 0.065) and grilse stages (age 2+, 23% versus 10%, p = 0.034). In contrast, rates of female grilse (6.8%) and smolt age 1+ (>95%) were independent of sire size. Logistic regression indicated that grilse of small sires had an asymptote body weight (BW) 30% lower than grilse of large sires (1.0 versus 1.4 kg). In comparison, repeated measures analysis of BW, fork length (FL), and condition factor (CF) indicated that growth changes associated with grilsing were independent of sire size and sex. The highest-order interaction for which sire size was significant was day × sire × sex (p < 0.034). Independent of sire size, sexual maturation at both age 0+ and age 2+ was associated with a high CF, whereas smolting at age 1+ was associated with a high BW and FL but low CF.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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