MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A spatially explicit study of prey–predator interactions in larval fish: assessing the influence of food and predator abundance on larval growth and survival

2003· article· en· W2156588783 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pierre Pepin, John F. Dower, Fraser Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of VictoriaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationPredatorAbundance (ecology)LarvaBayIchthyoplanktonBiologyEcologyPopulationApex predatorEnvironmental scienceGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We apply a coupled biophysical model to reconstruct the environmental history of larval radiated shanny in Conception Bay, Newfoundland. Data on the larvae, their prey and predators were collected during a 2‐week period. Our goal was to determine whether environmentally explicit information could be used to infer the characteristics of individual larvae that are most likely to survive. Backward drift reconstruction was used to assess the influence of variations in the feeding environment on changes in the growth rates of individual larvae. Forward drift projections were used to assess the impact of predators on mortality rates as well as the cumulative density distribution of growth rates in the population of larvae in different areas of the bay. There was relatively little influence of current feeding conditions on increment widths. Patterns of selective mortality indicate that fast‐growing individuals suffered higher mortality rates, suggesting they were growing into a predator's prey field. However, the mortality rates appeared to increase with decreasing predator abundance, based on the drift reconstructions. The relationship of growth and mortality with environmental conditions suggests that short‐term, small‐scale variations in environmental history may be difficult to describe accurately in this relatively small system (∼1000 km 2 ).

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations58
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207