MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2068936885 · doi:10.1139/f08-068

Transport and growth of larval cisco (Coregonus artedi) in the Keweenaw Current region of Lake Superior

2008· article· en· W2068936885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason K. Oyadomari, Nancy A. Auer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTransectLarvaCoregonusPeninsulaCurrent (fluid)OceanographySubmarine pipelineFisheryBayBiologyEcologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Larval cisco ( Coregonus artedi ) were sampled from Lake Superior off the western coast of the Keweenaw Peninsula (Michigan, USA) to determine if the Keweenaw Current influences their distribution and growth. Bongo net tows were conducted during April–June 2000 from four transects extending from 0.1 to 17 km offshore. For most sampling dates, cisco tended to be slightly more abundant, larger, and older at inshore locations. Later-hatched larvae appeared at the western-most transects first, during which time earlier-hatched larvae disappeared from the study area. This pattern followed what would be expected if larvae were being transported eastward by the prevailing Keweenaw Current. Estimated growth rates were 84% higher for later-hatched compared with earlier-hatched larvae and 25% lower for offshore larvae from the eastern-most transects compared with elsewhere. Accordingly, surface water temperatures partly explained spatial and temporal variations in growth rate. These results indicate that cisco larvae in Lake Superior may be transported great distances from major spawning sites by longshore currents and that the temperature regime of nursery areas may largely control their 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)0.000
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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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