MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122541060 · doi:10.1071/mf03173

Estimating the contribution of sympatric anadromous and freshwater resident brown trout to juvenile production

2004· article· en· W2122541060 on OpenAlexaff
Katia Charles, Jean‐Marc Roussel, Richard A. Cunjak

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Freshwater Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish migrationBrown troutElectrofishingBiologySympatrySalmoFisherySympatric speciationJuvenilePopulationFreshwater fishIsotope analysisTroutEcologyδ13CStable isotope ratioFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis was used to study the reproductive contributions of anadromous and freshwater resident female brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) in La Roche Brook (Normandy, France), where both forms live in sympatry. Sixty-nine emerging fry were sampled by electrofishing in three different locations in the lower, middle and upper reaches of the stream, in March–April 2002. A collection of samples with known origin (brown trout eggs and fin tissues and benthic invertebrates) allowed classification of each emerging fry as the progeny of freshwater resident (d13C = –26.0‰ ± 0.8 s.d.; d15N = 12.5‰ ± 1.4 s.d.) or anadromous (d13C = –18.8‰ ± 0.6 s.d., d15N = 14.8‰ ± 0.9 s.d.) female brown trout. It was then possible to estimate the relative contribution (33%) of anadromous females to the population of fry that emerged from redds in 2002 and to evaluate the extent to which freshwater and anadromous spawning grounds overlapped in the stream.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207