MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077824617 · doi:10.1139/z02-030

The timing of adult sockeye salmon migration into fresh water: adaptations by populations to prevailing thermal regimes

2002· article· en· W2077824617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sayre Hodgson, Thomas P. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeWashington Sea Grant, University of WashingtonNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsSpawn (biology)Fish migrationOncorhynchusBiologyFisheryEcologyRange (aeronautics)PopulationFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anadromous fishes migrate to sea, apparently to take advantage of growing conditions, and return to fresh water to spawn. Despite favorable growing conditions at sea in summer, some populations leave the ocean in spring, many months prior to spawning. We hypothesized that this premature migration is a consequence of the fish having to avoid stressful summer temperatures in order to access certain suitable areas for spawning in the fall. We tested this idea in sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, by compiling data on the timing of migration and spawning and the freshwater temperature regime along the migration route in populations throughout the species' North American range. The timing of migration varied among populations and was primarily related to temperature regime during migration and the timing of spawning. When temperatures were moderate (&lt;19°C), sockeye salmon tended to migrate to the vicinity of the spawning grounds about 1 month prior to spawning, regardless of the length of the freshwater migration. However, populations on whose migration route the average temperature exceeded 19°C displayed two basic patterns. Some populations entered fresh water prior to the warmest period, months before spawning, whereas others migrated after the period of highest temperatures had occurred.

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 score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations213
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207