MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135842516 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0284

Sea lice, sockeye salmon, and foraging competition: lousy fish are lousy competitors

2015· article· en· W2135842516 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sean C. Godwin, Lawrence M. Dill, John D. Reynolds, Martin Krkošek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoVancouver Coastal HealthSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPacific Salmon FoundationAtlantic Veterinary CollegeSimon Fraser University
KeywordsOncorhynchusForagingLepeophtheirusBiologyCompetition (biology)PredationJuvenileJuvenile fishFisheryPopulationEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>AquacultureDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathogens threaten wildlife globally, but these impacts are not restricted to direct mortality from disease. For fish, which experience periods of extremely high mortality during their early life history, infections may primarily influence population dynamics and conservation through indirect effects on ecological processes such as competition and predation. We conducted a competitive foraging experiment using outmigrating juvenile Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) to determine whether fish with high abundances of parasitic sea lice (Caligus clemensi and Lepeophtheirus salmonis) have reduced competitive abilities when foraging. Highly infected sockeye were 20% less successful at consuming food, on average, than lightly infected fish. Competitive ability also increased with fish body size. Our results provide the first evidence that parasite exposure may have negative indirect effects on the fitness of juvenile sockeye salmon and suggest that indirect effects of pathogens may be of key importance for the conservation of marine fish.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207