MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2113762289 · doi:10.1139/f05-154

Does climate during embryonic development influence parr growth and age of seaward migration in Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)?

2005· article· en· W2113762289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nina Jönsson, Bror Jönsson, Lars P. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsSalmoNorth Atlantic oscillationOtolithFisheryEl Niño Southern OscillationBiologyEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>ClimatologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climatic conditions experienced by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in their early development appear to affect parr size at the end of the first growth season and age at emigration from the nursery river. North Atlantic Oscillation indices (NAOIs) correlated positively with water temperature (degree-days) and discharge in the River Imsa during winter (January–April) 1976–2002, indicating a significant oceanic influence on the winter conditions in the river. Specific growth rate of Atlantic salmon parr during the first year of life and the proportion of one-year-old smolts correlated positively with water temperature, flow, and NAOI during February–April during the winter of egg incubation, but only NAOI was significant when cross-correlating the two series using a time difference of 1 year. Water temperature correlated significantly with the proportion of salmon cohorts smolting and migrating to sea at age-1. Such long-term effects of climate during early development may be more important than generally recognized.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→