MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of density‐dependent growth in juvenile stream‐dwelling salmonids

2005· article· en· W2113964805 on OpenAlexaff
James W. A. Grant, I. Imre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAkaike information criterionDensity dependencePopulation densityJuvenilePopulationGrowth rateLinear regressionStatisticsGrowth curve (statistics)Competition (biology)EcologyRegressionZoologyMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature data for 19 populations from 16 different studies of six species of stream‐dwelling salmonids were analysed to test the hypothesis that density‐dependent growth is stronger at low rather than at high population density. Fifteen of 19 populations showed evidence of a significant decrease in growth rate with increasing density. In 11 of these 15 populations, the pattern of density‐dependent growth was better described by a negative power curve than by a linear regression (i.e. Akaike Information Criterion,AIClinear − AICpower > 2), whereas only one population was better described by a linear regression than by a negative power curve; three populations were adequately described by both models (AIC < 2). In 10 of the 11 populations that were best described by a negative power curve, most of the decrease in growth rate occurred at population densities <1 fish m−2, when space limitation is unlikely. This analysis provides broad support for the hypothesis that density‐dependent growth in stream salmonids occurs primarily at low population densities, probably due to exploitative competition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations184
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207