MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2131537760 · doi:10.1139/f09-014

Planktivore vertical migration and shoaling under a subarctic light regime

2009· article· en· W2131537760 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karl Øystein Gjelland, Thomas Bøhn, John K. Horne, Ingrid Jensvoll, Frank Reier Knudsen, Per‐Arne Amundsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanktivoreShoaling and schoolingForagingDiel vertical migrationPredationSubarctic climateCoregonus lavaretusEcologyBiologyFisheryNocturnalFish <Actinopterygii>Phytoplankton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visually foraging planktivorous fish are prey of visual predators, and their foraging behaviour may be affected by light levels both in terms of gain and risk. The large seasonal change in day length throughout a subarctic summer at 69°N was used to show the influence of light on diel vertical migration (DVM) and shoaling patterns in a planktivorous fish assemblage consisting of two species ( Coregonus lavaretus and Coregonus albula ). Under the midnight sun in June, night and daytime behaviour was similar, with extensive shoaling and limited DVM. With increasingly darker nights towards autumn, the fish dispersed during the dark hours and showed more extensive DVM. Throughout the changing light regime of both the day and the season, the planktivores consistently chose depths with light levels compatible with visual foraging and reduced predation risk as revealed from reactive distance modelling of coregonids and their salmonid predators. The findings support the hypothesis that behavioural decisions are based on a trade-off between foraging rate and predation risk, and increased predator avoidance behaviour towards autumn suggests that this trade-off is state-dependent.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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