MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147958183 · doi:10.1139/f10-144

Rapid growth in the early marine period improves the marine survival of Chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) in Puget Sound, Washington

2011· article· en· W2147958183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisabeth J. Duffy, David A. Beauchamp

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWashington Sea Grant, University of WashingtonUniversity of the Pacific
KeywordsChinook windOncorhynchusHatcheryFisherySound (geography)Fish measurementMarine lifeBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Oceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effect of early marine entry timing and body size on the marine (smolt-to-adult) survival of Puget Sound Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). We used data from coded wire tag release groups of hatchery Chinook salmon to test whether hatchery release date, release size, and size in offshore waters in July and September influenced marine survival. Marine survival was most strongly related to the average body size in July, with larger sizes associated with higher survivals. This relationship was consistent over multiple years (1997–2002), suggesting that mortality after July is strongly size-dependent. Release size and date only slightly improved this relationship, whereas size in September showed little relationship to marine survival. Specifically, fish that experienced the highest marine survivals were released before 25 May and were larger than 17 g (or 120 mm fork length) by July. Our findings highlight the importance of local conditions in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) during the spring and summer, and suggest that declines in marine survival since the 1980s may have been caused by reductions in the quality of feeding and growing conditions during early marine life.

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)0.002
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 score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations186
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207