MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative proximate body composition of Atlantic salmon with emphasis on parr from fluvial and lacustrine habitats

2004· article· en· W2082457309 on OpenAlexaff
J. Brian Dempson, Carl J. Schwarz, Milton Shears, G. Furey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluvialHabitatOverwinteringBiologySalmoEcologyComposition (language)Sampling (signal processing)STREAMSFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Paleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nutritional status of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr was assessed by examining how proximate body composition and energy content (kJ g −1 ) were associated with the habitat rearing origin of parr utilizing fluvial or lacustrine areas. Comparisons were made among sampling sites within the two habitats, as well as between the two major habitat types applying both fixed effect and random effect models. Mean protein concentration varied from 13·87 to 15·67% among fluvial sites, and from 14·96 to 16·38% among lacustrine sampling locations. Mean fat concentration ranged from 1·71 to 3·32% and from 2·22 to 4·29% among fluvial and lacustrine locations, respectively, with energy concentration, on average, c . 11% higher in lacustrine parr. Interpretation of results of comparisons between habitats was dependent upon the statistical model used. Benefits associated with lacustrine rearing, such as greater body size and nutritional status, have implications for overwintering survival in fresh water as well as subsequent survival during initial sea entrance as smolts.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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