Evaluation of Techniques for the Marking of Mummichogs with Emphasis on Visible Implant Elastomer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We conducted two experiments to determine the most appropriate method for use in a mark–recapture study of movements of the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the first experiment, 315 mummichogs were marked with fin clips, fingerling tags, acrylic paint, or visible implant elastomer (VIE) and were held for 144 d. Percent tag retention (98.5%) and survival (100%) were highest for the VIE group, and no negative effect was observed on length growth. This led to a more detailed experiment (167 d) to assess potential negative effects of VIE on the growth and survival of 144 mummichogs marked on various body locations; we also assessed mark retention and readability in this experiment. No negative effects on growth were detected; mean daily length increases ranged from 0.04 to 0.12 mm, and specific growth rates for all groups ranged from 0.129% to 0.470%. Mean survival of all groups was 90.8% (range = 66.7–100%) and was higher in marked groups than controls. All marks were retained and visible without the aid of a light-emitting diode light at the end of the experiment, thus demonstrating that VIE is a suitable method for the marking of mummichogs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".