MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2150698437 · doi:10.1139/f05-182

Rule of age and size at maturity of chum salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus keta</i>): implications of recent trends among <i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.

2005· article· en· W2150698437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kentaro Morita, S. Morita, Masa‐aki Fukuwaka, Hiroyuki Matsuda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusMaturity (psychological)BiologyGrowth rateSexual maturityEcologyFisheryZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the size at maturity of many North Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) populations decreased. During this same period, the age at maturity increased, implying that the growth rate of Pacific salmon decreased, probably owing to environmental changes. To elucidate these trends, we identified the rule of age and size at maturity of Japanese chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), which was that slow-growing salmon initiated maturation at an older age and smaller size than did fast-growing salmon. We then simulated the potential modification of age and size at maturity in response to changing growth rate using a size-structured model with age- and size-specific maturation rates. This showed that reducing the growth rate without assuming a genetic change was sufficient for realistic modeling of recent changes. In addition, the observed rule of age and size at maturity was consistent with the optimal age and size at maturity in terms of maximizing the fitness. Our results attributed the recent trends in chum salmon's increasing age and decreasing size at maturity to an adaptive phenotypic response to a reduced growth rate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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