Revisiting Trends in the Evolution of Egg Size in Hatchery‐Enhanced Populations of Chinook Salmon from British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hatchery enhancement has been reported to result in an increase in egg size in coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch and a decline in egg size in Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha. Egg size may be directly influenced by selection, a larger egg size evolving as a consequence of hatchery incubation. Alternatively, a smaller egg size could evolve as a correlated response to fecundity selection, and a unidirectional change in egg size over time may reflect selection and an underlying genetic change in the population. To address this question, temporal trends in egg size were investigated for two hatchery‐enhanced populations of Chinook salmon from Vancouver Island, British Columbia. After the effect of female length variation was removed by standardizing egg sizes to a female of common length (the overall mean for each population), there was no temporal trend in egg size from the 1970s to 2008 for any of the hatchery‐enhanced populations evaluated. These results do not support a previous report of genetically based declines in egg size in hatchery‐enhanced Chinook salmon populations from this region.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".