MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consequences to fitness‐related traits of hybridization between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon, <i>Salmo salar</i>

2004· article· en· W2080150900 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer L. Lawlor, Jeffrey A. Hutchings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoIntrogressionBiologySalmonidaePopulationFish farmingZoologyHybridEcologyFisheryAquacultureFish <Actinopterygii>GeneticsDemographyBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introgression between wild and farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar has been hypothesized to influence the persistence of wild populations, particularly those at heightened risk of extinction. Based on pure and hybrid crosses involving one farmed and two wild populations (Tusket River and Stewiacke River, an endangered population) in a common‐garden environment, we examined the consequences of introgression to survival, growth, and disease resistance in the first year of life. Introgression with farmed salmon had either no effect (Stewiacke) or a negative effect (Tusket) on survival. Importantly, the among‐family variance in survival (a negative correlate of population persistence) was higher for the hybrids than it was among the pure crosses. There was also evidence of genetic differences in growth rate and disease susceptibility. Introgression with their farmed counterparts is unlikely to have a positive effect on the fitness of wild Atlantic salmon. The degree to which genetic interactions between farmed and wild salmon threaten the latter's persistence almost certainly depends on the degree to which individuals are adapted to their local environment, on the genetic differentiation between farmed and wild individuals, and on the relative proportions of farmed and wild salmon during spawning.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207