Comparison between consumption rates of yellow perch (<i>Perca flavescens</i>) estimated with a digestive tract model and with a radioisotope approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared consumption rates of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) obtained from surveys of complete digestive tract contents (CDTC) with two radioisotope approaches using 137Cs as a biological tracer. We sampled fish of age 1+, 2+, and 3+ from three lakes for a total of six lake - age-class combinations. The two radioisotope methods provided very similar estimates of consumption rates. The relative differences between the CDTC approach and the radioisotope approaches ranged from 67 to 128% when the sampling interval length was 28-35 days. At the time scale of 70 days, the relative differences between the approaches ranged from 15 to 20%. We propose that the ratio of the sampling interval length to the biological half-life of the contaminant determines the discrepancy between consumption estimates obtained using CDTC and radioisotopic approaches. Our analyses suggest that, under the specific conditions encountered in our study, a minimum value for this ratio to obtain adequate consumption rates may be 45%. Although our work represents a corroboration of the radioisotope approach in systems where 137Cs is present at trace levels, it also suggests that consumption rates obtained for time periods shorter than 70 days should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".