MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growth, ingestion rates and metabolic activity of walleye in lakes with and without lake herring

2004· article· en· W2090582690 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bryan A. Henderson, Gwyn Morgan, A. Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksAurora CollegeLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerchPredationHerringBiologyFisheryCoregonusIngestionForagingEnergeticsPredatorPredatory fishEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth efficiencies, ingestions rates and activity levels of walleye Sander vitreus were compared in lakes with and without lake herring Coregonus artedi. Yellow perch Perca flavescens were the main prey in lakes without lake herring. Walleye were sampled in September and October from 38 lakes in Ontario in 1998 and 1999, using multimesh monofilament gillnets. Ingestion rates were estimated from annual increments in somatic mercury and body mass, and the mercury content of yellow perch and lake herring. Walleye had higher growth efficiencies, and lower ingestion and activity rates in lakes with lake herring. Lake herring grow larger than yellow perch and therefore could provide more profitable prey for larger walleye. The results are consistent with optimal foraging theory that predicts that walleye feeding on optimal prey sizes should grow more efficiently, if the ratio of feeding benefit (energy) to cost (search and seizure) is a function of the ratio of predator and prey size.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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