MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

About the oldest domesticates among fishes

2004· article· en· W2125810824 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene K. Balon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomesticationCommon carpBarbelBiologyCyprinusCarpFisheryCatfishFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyFish farmingZoologyAquaculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestication of mammals such as cattle, dogs, pigs and horses preceded that of fishes by at least 10 000 years. The first domesticated fish was the common carpCyprinus carpio. Initially it was held as an exploited captive and did not undergo major changes in body shape or colour variations. About 2000 years ago, wild common carp were most abundant in the inland delta of the Danube River. These fish were torpedo shaped, golden‐yellow in colour and had two pairs of barbels and a mesh‐like scale pattern. Large schools of them thrived and reproduced on the flood plains of the Danube. The Romans kept fishes in specially built ponds at that time. The common carp was an ideal candidate and its rearing became more popular in medieval times. Common carp culture gradually became the most profitable branch of agriculture in central Europe and many special ponds were built. Soon common carp were being produced in pond systems including spawning and growing ponds. Unintentional artificial selection had taken place between the 12th and mid‐14th century, and deep bodied and variously scaled or scaleless domesticated forms appeared in nearly every pond system. Some colour aberrations appeared in the 1950s in Japan, which, as koi, became the most expensive of fish. Common carp were not originally domesticated in China but wild ‘chi’Carassius auratusoccasionally appeared as a xanthic form that, as the goldfish, has been known since 960 A.D. By the 1200s the fish were used as ornamental animals in the garden pools of rich landowners. Circa 1276 to 1546, the Chinese began keeping golden chi in aquarium‐like vessels and soon rich and poor alike became breeders of the fancy domesticated goldfish. The variously shaped monstrosities and colour aberrants were freaks but they became very fashionable at that time and still are. Domesticated goldfish monstrosities were first exported from China to Japan and much later to Europe and around the world. More recently other species have been domesticated by aquarists, such as the guppyPoecilia reticulataor the neon tetraParacheirodon innesi. Other fishes kept as ornamentals, like swordtailsXiphophorus helleriiand platiesXiphophorus maculatus, the discus and angelfishes (Cichlidae), as well as those cultured for food like the rainbow troutOncorhynchus mykiss, channel catfishIctalurus punctatusor sturgeons (Acipenseridae) are merely exploited captives.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.029

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations271
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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