MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030680975 · doi:10.1577/h04-059.1

Thiamine Status in Adult Salmonines in the Great Lakes

2005· article· en· W2030680975 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Brown, Dale C. Honeyfield, John G. Hnath, Martha Wolgamood, Susan V. Marcquenski, John D. Fitzsimons, Donald E. Tillitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aquatic Animal Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesNorthwestern UniversityGreat Lakes Fishery CommissionGreat Lakes Fishery Trust
KeywordsThiamineBiologyZoologyPhysiologyEcologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1996 and again in 1999, hatchery personnel noted that some Lake Michigan coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch from fall spawning runs on the Platte River weir exhibited abnormal wiggling behavior that was similar to the behavior exhibited by thiamine-deficient Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, from the Baltic Sea. Samples of eggs or gonads, muscle, and liver from salmon and lake trout Salvelinus namaycush exhibiting abnormal behaviors were collected to determine the extent to which the behaviors were related to a thiamine deficiency. We compared these values with those found in normally behaving fish that produced offspring with high embryonic survival. In all adult fish exhibiting abnormal behavior, tissue residues of thiamine were among the lowest observed in the Great Lakes. Where embryonic survival was assessed, abnormal adult behavior was also associated with very high levels of offspring mortality due to early mortality syndrome. While the overall ecological significance remains to be determined, it appears that adult fish also exhibit neurological dysfunction and mortality associated with thiamine deficiency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aquatic Animal HealthSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207