MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109996779 · doi:10.1093/mollus/eyu093

Predicting the timing of the pediveliger stage of Mytilus edulis based on ocean temperature

2015· article· en· W2109996779 on OpenAlexaff
Ramón Filgueira, Michael S. Brown, Luc A. Comeau, Jon Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molluscan Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersUniversity of Hawai'i
KeywordsMusselBiologyPhenologyPelagic zoneMytilusBlue musselFisheryBiological dispersalEcologyLarvaPopulationHatcheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature affects nearly all biological rates and consequently is fundamental to individual development time and timing of phenological events. One example is the duration of the pelagic larval stage of mussels, which is crucial for determining the magnitude and timing of recruitment, as well as population dispersal patterns. Understanding the impact of temperature on the rate of larval development is key to predicting the timing of settlement and optimizing mussel seed collection. Advising mussel farmers on Prince Edward Island about the ideal timing for collector deployment is one of the goals of the Mussel Monitoring Program (MMP). In this study we examine the relationship between the phenology of larval development based on MMP data, and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature. The analyses indicated that the first day of the year on which 10–20% of the pool of mussel larvae reached 250 µm could be predicted using the thermal integral measure growing degree-days. While this finding confirmed the importance of temperature for mussel larval phenology, the effect of other environmental variables such as phytoplankton quantity and quality cannot be dismissed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molluscan StudiesSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207