Relationship between sperm density, spermatocrit, sperm motility and spawning date in wild and cultured haddock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semen was collected repeatedly from captive haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus and the effect of seasonality on various sperm parameters was investigated. No differences in sperm traits were observed for wild and cultured haddock. A highly significant positive relationship existed between spermatocrit and spermatozoa density. A significant increase in mean spermatocrit occurred throughout the spawning season but the amount of variability explained by collection date was low (35·1%) due to variability between males. Each of 10 males sampled repeatedly throughout the spawning season demonstrated an increase in spermatocrit. No relationship existed between spermatocrit and proportion of motile spermatozoa when spermatocrit was ≤70%. Motility was reduced in semen samples with spermatocrits >70%. The proportion of spermatozoa that were motile decreased with time since activation. Some motility was still observed after 60 min in sea water (0·1–15·2%) for sperm collected at all times within the spawning season. Of those spermatozoa that were motile, the proportion that exhibited forward swimming motion decreased and the proportion that had only vibratory movement increased with time post‐activation. The speed of forward swimming spermatozoa showed no significant relationship with spermatocrit at any time between 0 and 60 min after activation. Swimming speed was negatively related to time since activation, decreasing from 174–240 μm s−1 at 0 min to 80–128 μm s−1 at 60 min after activation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".