MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attraction of slimy sculpins to chemical cues of brook charr eggs

2002· article· en· W2028942217 on OpenAlexaff
Reehan S. Mirza, P. Chiers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSculpinBiologySalvelinusFontinalisAttractionFresh waterZoologyFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Trout

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a laboratory study to examine the responses of slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus to chemical cues of brook charr Salvelinus fontinalis eggs, water that held freshly laid eggs (<20 min old), water‐hardened eggs (i.e. eggs >4 h old) or injured eggs was collected and used in a series of two‐choice tests. Slimy sculpin were exposed to paired stimuli of (1) hard egg water v. control water, (2) fresh egg water v. control water, (3) hard egg water v. injured egg water or (4) hard egg water v. fresh egg water. Sculpin spent considerably more time on the side of the tank with hard egg water and fresh egg water v. control water and injured egg water v. hard egg water. Sculpin did not show a preference for hard egg water v. fresh egg water. In a field study, brook charr were attracted to chemical cues from brook charr eggs, suggesting that brook charr eggs produce sufficient odour to attract some species under natural 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207