MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035761403 · doi:10.1577/a05-105.1

The Use of Black Fly Larvae as a Food Source for Hatchery-Reared Lake Sturgeon

2007· article· en· W2035761403 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheryl N. Klassen, Stephan J. Peake

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsLake sturgeonBrine shrimpBiologyAcipenserLarvaBlack flyChironomidaeHatcheryFisheryAnimal scienceSturgeonZoologyShrimpEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Live and frozen black fly larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae) were incorporated into the diets of larval lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in 2002 and 2005 for a 6-week period to determine whether fish would accept this invertebrate diet more readily than conventional bloodworm (Diptera: Chironomidae) diets. In 2002, daily feedings of live black fly larvae within an 8-h period resulted in a mean survival rate of 37%. Adjusting the diet regime in 2005 (i.e., initial diet of brine shrimp Artemia spp., two daily feedings within a 14-h period, and diet transition periods of 3, 5, and 7 d) resulted in overall mean survival rates greater than 80%. Survival of lake sturgeon transitioned to black fly larvae was significantly better than that of control groups transitioned to bloodworms over 3 d and statistically similar to that of bloodworm-fed groups transitioned over 5 and 7 d. Fewer feedings and lower daily rations of black fly larvae in comparison with bloodworms did not result in differences between the final mean mass of fish in 2005. We conclude that frozen black fly larvae can reduce the effort required to transition lake sturgeon from an initial diet of brine shrimp without compromising current survival and growth standards achieved with bloodworm diets.

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)0.000
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207