MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072213929 · doi:10.1139/f03-042

Energy allocation among developmental stages, age groups, and types of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) spawners

2003· article· en· W2072213929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nina Jönsson, Bror Jönsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk institutt for naturforskning
KeywordsSalmoFish migrationBiologyEnergeticsFisheryReproductionSalmonidaeEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between energy density (kJ·100 g–1) and body length (mm), which varied between life-history stages of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), were described by power functions. The variation was chiefly caused by differences in lipid concentrations. Energy densities of maturing and rematuring parr were higher than those of similarly aged smolts. Monthly specific growth rate was higher in maturing parr than in salmon at sea. Mature parr males allocated relatively more energy to gonadal development and less to soma development than anadromous males. Spawning expenditure increased from 34 to 53% for 55- to 72-cm-long females. In males, similar losses were from 47 to 49% of their total energy content at river entry. More energy was used in reproduction in a long river than in a short one. Male allocation to gonads relative to soma was highest in the shorter river. Energy allocation pattern varied among developmental stages. Very energy-rich male parr rematured in subsequent years without going to sea; less energy-rich ones smolted and migrated to sea.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations115
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207