Temperature and hunger mediate sablefish (<i>Anoplopoma fimbria</i>) feeding motivation: implications for stock assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that temperature (28 °C) and recent feeding history (16 days of food deprivation) influence feeding motivation and attacks on baits by adult sablefish (Anoplo poma fimbria). Activity level after introduction of a bait-related olfactory cue increased with increasing water temperature and food deprivation. Fish at the lowest temperature (2 °C) attacked and consumed fewer squid baits (3371%) than those at higher temperatures (100% at 8 °C). Baits were frequently inspected or handled multiple times before consumption in low temperatures, and time to attack (seconds to >40 min), time to consume, and time to handle baits (220 s) all decreased significantly with increasing temperature, with some temperature × feeding history interactions. The total ration consumed increased (<18% of body weight) with increasing water temperature. The observed variability in activity and feeding motivation in sablefish may have a large impact on the effective area of baited gear but is rarely considered in stock assessment models. In particular, population sizes based upon baited gear surveys may be underestimated in conditions where temperature is low, natural prey density is high, or where other environmental variables reduce feeding motivation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".