MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Food web position of burbot relative to lake trout, northern pike, and lake whitefish in four sub-Arctic boreal lakes

2011· article· en· W2097926716 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Cott, Thomas A. Johnston, John M. Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ichthyology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryLaurentian UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsCoregonus clupeaformisSalvelinusPikeEsoxTroutTrophic levelFisheryBorealFood webBiologyCoregonusArcticPiscivoreProfundal zoneEcologyPredationFish <Actinopterygii>Benthic zone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the food web position of burbot Lota lota relative to co-occurring large-bodied fishes in four northern (62°40′N, 114°10′W) boreal shield lakes of similar size (305–547 ha) using a stable isotope approach. Trophic position (inferred from δ15N) was positively correlated to body mass in burbot, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush, and northern pike Esox lucius, but negatively correlated to body mass in lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis. Carbon source (inferred from δ13C) was positively correlated to body mass in lake whitefish, but not related to body mass in any of the other three species. In all lakes, burbot had δ15N and δ13C signatures very similar to those of lake trout. Both burbot and lake trout were more δ15N-enriched than northern pike (P < 0.001). Lake trout had lower δ13C than northern pike and lake whitefish (P = 0.0023) but not burbot. Our results confirm that burbot occupy a position near the top of the food chain in boreal lakes and may play an important role in structuring the limnetic fish community.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied IchthyologySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207