MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Temperature on First Feeding, Growth, and Survival of Larval Witch Flounder <i>Glyptocephalus cynoglossus</i>

2001· article· en· W2089169376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah A. Bidwell, W. Huntting Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the World Aquaculture Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMetamorphosisLarvaFlounderHatchingAnimal scienceWitchWeaningOlive flounderFisheryZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus has recently been identified as a candidate species for aquaculture in the northeastern United States and the Canadian Atlantic Provinces. This study investigated the optimal temperatures for witch flounder larval first feeding and for long term larval culture from hatching through metamorphosis. Maximum first feeding occurred between 15.0 and 16.2 C. Larvae did not survive beyond first feeding when reared at mean temperatures of 5.1, 10.4, or 19.5 C and were unable to initiate feeding at mean rearing temperatures below 6.0 C. At a rearing temperature of 15.0 C in 16‐L tanks, mean larval survival to 60 days post hatch (dph) was 14.1%. Mean overall length‐specific growth rate for larvae reared to 60 dph at 15.0 C was 3.5%/d and mean absolute growth was 0.62 mm/d. Subsequent larval growth at 15.6 C began to taper off towards 70 dph at the onset of weaning which overlapped with larval metamorphosis. Growth plateaued at 85 dph, followed by a rebound between 90 and 95 dph. Survival was 100% when weaning onto a dry, pelleted diet was initiated at 70 dph with a 10‐d live diet co‐feeding period. These results are favorable and encourage the further pursuit of commercial witch flounder culture.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the World Aquaculture SocietySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207