Dynamics of growth-based survival mechanisms in Japanese anchovy (<i>Engraulis japonicus</i>) larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three growth-based survival mechanisms were tested for multiple cohorts of Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus) larvae in Sagami Bay. Through otolith microstructure analysis, growth trajectories and histories of samples of the survivors were compared with those of the original populations to examine size- and growth-selective mortality to test the “bigger is better” and “growth-selective predation” mechanisms, respectively. The effects of growth rates on the timing of metamorphosis were examined to test the “stage duration” mechanism. The bigger is better and growth-selective predation mechanisms were detected to be effective in two and six of eight seasonal cohorts, respectively. Results contrary to the bigger is better and growth-selective predation mechanisms were obtained from three and two of eight cohorts, respectively. The stage duration mechanism was evaluated to be effective for both of two cohorts that were testable. Overall, none of the three mechanisms were universally appropriate for all of the cohorts. The relative contributions of the three mechanisms were dynamic, although the growth-selective predation mechanism was identified to be the major one in anchovy larvae in the study site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".