MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growth hormone transgenesis does not influence territorial dominance or growth and survival of first-feeding Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in food-limited stream microcosms

2011· article· en· W2095726219 on OpenAlexaff
Darek T. R. Moreau, Ian Fleming, G. L. Fletcher, Jennifer Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoBiologyTransgeneDominance (genetics)AquacultureZoologyMicrocosmSalmonidaeFisheryForagingEcologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>GeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the relative competitive ability and performance of first-feeding growth hormone (GH) transgenic and non-transgenic Atlantic salmon Salmo salar fry under low food conditions. Pair-wise dominance trials indicated a strong competitive advantage for residents of a contested foraging territory. Transgenic and non-transgenic individuals, however, were equally likely to be dominant. Similarly, in stream environments with limited food, the transgene did not influence the growth in mass or survival at high or low fry densities. Fry in low-density treatments, however, performed better than fry in high-density treatments. These results indicate that, under the environment examined, the growth performance of GH-transgenic and non-transgenic S. salar may be similar during first feeding, an intense period of selection in their life history. Similarities in competitive ability and growth performance with wild-type fish suggest that the capacity of transgenic S. salar to establish in natural streams may not be inhibited during early life history.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207