The effects of adult length and arrival date on individual reproductive success in wild steelhead trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the relative importance of adult size and arrival date for reproductive success in a natural setting, we first genetically determined relationships between all spawning adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and juvenile offspring in four brood years and then tested hypothesized relationships between parents' phenotypes and the number and size of their juvenile offspring. Patterns of reproductive success varied among years, but in all cases, a few adults of each sex produced most of the offspring. The number of offspring showed a weak, positive relationship to the mother's size but not to her arrival date. Paternal reproductive success varied considerably but was only weakly associated with size in 1998 and weakly related to arrival date in 2000. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, the offspring of early-spawning females were larger at the end of their first and second summers in the stream; however, in 2000, both arrival date and length were positively related to offspring size. There was no general trend in offspring size in relation to paternal size or arrival date; however, paternal length affected offspring size in 1998 and male arrival date affected offspring size in 2000.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".