MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025009209 · doi:10.1139/f06-081

Bioenergetics and mercury dynamics in fish: a modelling perspective

2006· article· en· W2025009209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marc Trudel, Joseph B. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergeticsMercury (programming language)PredationTroutPiscivoreForage fishEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryPredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentration of mercury in fish generally increases with age and size. Although a number of hypotheses have been invoked to explain this pattern, our understanding of the processes regulating the accumulation of mercury in fish is currently inadequate. In this study, we used a simple mass balance model to explore how the relationship between mercury concentration and fish age is affected by bioenergetics processes and prey contamination. We show that mercury concentration increases with fish age when older fish consume more contaminated prey or when metabolic costs associated with activity also increase with fish size. Our analyses further indicate that the relative importance of growth rate, activity costs, and consumption rates for mercury concentration can vary widely. We also show that changes in the energy density of fish and their prey with fish size could also affect the relationship between mercury concentration in fish and age. Application of this mass balance model indicates that bioenergetics models underestimate the activity costs of lake trout. A simple approach is presented to estimate activity costs of fish under field conditions.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations240
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207