Changes in condition factor and gonadosomatic index in maturing and non-maturing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Bay of Fundy sea cages, and the effectiveness of photoperiod manipulation in reducing early maturation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in condition factor (cf) and gonadosomatic index (GSI) in maturing and non-maturing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) cultured in Bay of Fundy sea cages was investigated under control (natural) and continuous light conditions. All experimental cages contained salmon stocked as smolts in April 2001. Six control cages received only natural illumination, three received continuous light from 3 November, 2001 until 31 May, 2002, and three received continuous illumination from 15 February, 2001 until 31 May, 2002. In mid-July 2002, each cage was sampled, and sex, round weight, fork length (FL), mean muscle lipid content and gonad weight were recorded from each sampled fish. At harvest (August 2002 to February 2003), sex, maturation state, round weight and FL were measured from a sample of fish from each cage. The frequency distributions of GSIs from fish sampled in July indicated for both sexes a GSI>0.3 was indicative of early maturation. The relationship between cf and GSI suggested that salmon of both sexes had to have a cf greater than 1.3 in early summer for early maturation to develop. Continuous illumination from November greatly reduced the number of males with GSI>0.3 in mid-July (0.8%, compared with 50% for control males); 17% of males from cages lit in February had GSIs exceeding 0.3. The percentage of control females exceeding 0.3 was 7%, compared with 0% and 4% for females from cages receiving continuous illumination from November and February respectively. For salmon with GSI of 0.3 or less, the percent muscle lipid increased linearly with cf. A multiple regression of cf and FL on GSI (GSI=−0.973+0.35 cf+0.013 FL) correctly identified 88% of maturing vs. non-maturing salmon from control cages in July.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".