Timing and determination of potential fecundity in Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies using annual averages of lipid storage or estimated quality of the feeding season have shown that energy reserves influence egg production in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). However, vitellogenesis starts months before spawning. Therefore, energy reserves near the start of vitellogenesis might provide better proxies of fecundity and hence egg production than yearly averages. If so, proxies with large temporal variations (e.g., weight and lipid energy) should vary similarly in their predictive power, and females with different spawning periods should have their fecundity determined at different times. We exposed cod to two photoperiods to induce different spawning seasons. Growth before spawning was monitored, and potential fecundity was measured at the onset of spawning. The date yielding the greatest explanatory power differed between photoperiods. As proxies, length varied less and had lower explanatory power than weight. Lipid energy at the onset of spawning was a poor proxy. The greatest explanatory power was found ~34 months before spawning around the start of vitellogenesis, indicating that potential fecundity was highly influenced by female energy reserves at this time. Determination of potential fecundity early in vitellogenesis may be a common feature for determinate teleost spawners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".