MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of gut evacuation models for larval mackerel (<i>Scomber scombrus</i>) using serial photography

2009· article· en· W2091149793 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Dunbrack, L. A. Giguère, Jean‐François St‐Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsCoquitlam CollegeMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScomberBiologyLarvaMackerelExponential functionSquare rootFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel technique is described, using serial photography of the gut contents of transparent living larval fishes, to generate individual gut evacuation time series. This technique was applied to Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus larvae to compare three widely used models of gut evacuation: linear, exponential and square-root. Regression r(2) for the exponential model exceeded those for the linear and square root models in 20 of 21 time series, strongly supporting the exponential model. At the initial gut fullness for each time series, total gut evacuation rates calculated with the exponential model averaged 2.2 and 1.3 times greater than those calculated with the linear and square-root models, respectively, and would produce correspondingly higher estimates of feeding rates for field-collected larvae with similar levels of gut fullness. The results highlight the importance of choosing the appropriate evacuation model in feeding studies, particularly those intended to examine short-term changes in larval fish feeding rates, a contributing factor to the highly variable yearly recruitment of many marine fish species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207