MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072487440 · doi:10.1139/f04-213

Energy-related juvenile winter mortality in a northern population of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)

2004· article· en· W2072487440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anders G. Finstad, Ola Ugedal, Torbjørn Forseth, Tor F. Næsje

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk institutt for naturforskningNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsSalmoJuvenileSalmonidaePopulationBiologyEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)EcologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyAnimal scienceDemographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By comparing the population frequency distributions for specific somatic energy between samplings using quantile–quantile (QQ) plots, we tested for energy-related mortality of juvenile (2- and 3-year-old) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) sampled at monthly intervals throughout three consecutive winters in a Norwegian river located at 70°N. Between several of the sampling periods, changes in the distributions of specific energy were observed corresponding to removal of low-energy individuals. By using energetic modelling we demonstrated that metabolic processes or feeding could not be responsible for the shifts in the shape of the energy distributions and that negative-energy-dependent mortality was the most likely explanation for the observations. No changes in mean size of the fish or in the shape of the size distributions were observed between successive sampling periods, indicating that mortality was linked to levels of storage energy rather than to body size per se. Our study indicated a critical body energy level for survival of juvenile salmon at approximately 4400–4800 J·g –1 , corresponding to a depletion of storage lipids.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations124
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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