MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053789689 · doi:10.1139/f00-207

Interannual growth variation in fish and tree rings

2000· article· en· W2053789689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G Lebreton, F. W. H. Beamish

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus <genus>AcipenserLake sturgeonPopulationBiologySturgeonGrowing seasonDendrochronologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceFisheryBotanyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interannual growth variations were compared among neighbouring populations of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and white spruce (Picea glauca), white pine (Pinus strobus), and red pine (Pinus resinosa). Measures of growth were obtained by removing long-term trends from widths of rings in the hard tissues of both aquatic and terrestrial organisms and assembling these measures into growth chronologies. Interannual growth variations were negatively correlated (r) between sturgeon and nearby tree population chronologies for those fish populations that displayed strong interseries correlation (mean r). The three sturgeon population chronologies developed from individuals that displayed the lowest interseries correlation coefficients failed to display significant correlation with tree growth. The results of this investigation indicate that the negative relationships between fish and tree growth may be related to annual fluctuations in air temperature. In general, fish population chronologies displayed positive correlation with measures of air temperature during the current season of growth, while tree population chronologies displayed negative correlation with air temperatures from either the current or the previous season of growth.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→