A comparison of muscle‐ and scale‐derived <i>δ</i> <sup>13</sup> C and <i>δ</i> <sup>15</sup> N across three life‐history stages of Atlantic salmon, <i>Salmo salar</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotope signatures were obtained from paired scale and muscle tissue samples from smolt, post-smolt and one-sea-winter adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Post-smolt and adult scales were separated into central and outer (marine) portions with analyses carried out on the marine growth section of both life-history stages and the central portion for the adult scales. Muscle and scale delta(13)C and delta(15)N signatures were assessed (1) to determine whether a linear relationship exists between tissue types, (2) to determine if a constant offset exists between tissue signatures across all life-history stages, and (3) to evaluate whether underplating imparts a significant bias to life-history scale segments that would preclude their use in retrospective analyses of any ontogenetic dietary changes between life-history stages. Significant correlations were found to exist between muscle and scale stable isotope signatures obtained from smolts (delta(13)C and delta(15)N) and adults (delta(15)N). Both the muscle and the scale signatures captured the dietary shift associated with the transition from freshwater to the marine environment. Post-smolt and adult scales were depleted relative to muscle tissue, which may be attributed to isotopic differences in amino acid composition between muscle and scale tissues. The results suggest that scales may better represent dietary carbon sources because they are not influenced by lipid dynamics. The scale, however, appears less responsive to short-term shifts in diet relative to muscle and, therefore, must be used only to infer seasonally integrated dietary patterns for slow-growing life-history stages.
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) | 0.001 | 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".