MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2065714244 · doi:10.1139/f02-143

Differential energy allocation of alternative male tactics in masu salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus masou</i>)

2002· article· en· W2065714244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusuke Koseki, Koji Maekawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusGonadBiologyPopulationCompetition (biology)Energy budgetSomatic cellSperm competitionZoologyEcologyFisherySexual selectionFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyAnatomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To compare energy allocation to gonad, relative to soma, between alternative male tactics (mature parr and migratory males) in masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou), we quantified energy contents in somatic and testicular tissues for the two tactics from two lake-run populations (Shikaribetsu Lake and Shumarinai Reservoir) in Hokkaido, northern Japan. Mass-specific testicular energy (kJ·g–1) was lower in migratory males than in mature parr in the Shikaribetsu population, but not in the Shumarinai population. The consistent pattern was observed in somatic energy, suggesting that mass-specific energy reflects population environment rather than inherent allocation pattern. Despite this confounding effect of specific energy, total testicular energy (kJ), relative to total somatic energy, was higher in mature parr in both populations. We suggest that strong sperm competition involved with sneak spawning is responsible for an increased testicular investment in mature parr.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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