Ecotypic differentiation of native rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) populations from British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sampled 34 native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations over a wide geographic area of British Columbia to determine whether variation in morphology is related to differences in habitat or fish community characteristics experienced by a population. After correcting for differences in body size, the most dramatic differences occurred in external characteristics between stream- and lake-dwelling populations. Rainbow trout from streams had more robust bodies with larger caudal peduncles and heads and longer paired fins than rainbow trout from lakes. Unlike other lake populations, piscivorous rainbow trout populations had relatively large heads and mouths that were more similar in size to those of stream-dwelling populations. We found fewer differences in the size of internal organs across ecotypes, producing little predictive ability of these characteristics to differentiate populations of rainbow trout. We also sampled 27 additional rainbow trout populations with unknown fish communities to determine how well large-scale patterns predict morphological differentiation over a smaller spatial scale. Of the five ecotypes that we detected at a smaller scale, the largest differences again occurred between stream and lake populations. Our data suggest that external morphological variation among populations of rainbow trout covaries with ecological conditions at a variety of spatial scales, particularly between lakes and rivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".