MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of light intensity and spectrum on the incidence of first feeding by larval haddock

2001· article· en· W2103263438 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Downing, Matthew K. Litvak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaddockBiologyLarvaPredationLight intensityGadidaeAnimal scienceWhite lightZoologyAquacultureFisheryEcologyAtlantic codFish <Actinopterygii>Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under full–spectrum white light, feeding success of haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus first feeding larvae, as measured both by proportion of larvae feeding and mean prey consumed, peaked at 1·7‐18 μmol s ‐1 m ‐2 . Feeding was significantly reduced at lower and higher intensities. A similar result was observed for larvae feeding under blue (470 nm) light, with significantly greater feeding success at intermediate light intensity (1·8 μmol s ‐1 m ‐2 ). When different light qualities were compared, larvae had significantly greater feeding success when exposed to blue (470 nm) light than either full‐spectrum white or green (530 nm) light. Haddock larvae were capable of prey capture under all light treatments tested, indicating a necessary degree of adaptive flexibility in feeding response. The results are consistent with predisposition of haddock larvae to optimal feeding in a visual environment comparable with open ocean nursery grounds. Information on the impact of light on haddock first feeding can be incorporated into models of larval growth, survival, year‐class strength and recruitment, and assist in developing husbandry protocols to maximize larval survival in aquaculture.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations114
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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