MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554763441 · doi:10.1111/fme.12198

Sea lamprey avoid areas scented with conspecific tissue extract in Michigan streams

2016· article· en· W2554763441 on OpenAlexaff
R. T. Di Rocco, Nicholas S. Johnson, Linnea Brege, I. Imre, G. E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Management and Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityAlgoma University
FundersGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsLampreyPetromyzonTributarySTREAMSFisheryBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three in‐stream experiments were conducted to determine whether sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus L., tissue extract (alarm cue) and 2‐phenylethylamine hydrochloride (PEA HCl, a putative predator cue) influenced the distribution of migrating adult sea lamprey. Experiments evaluated sea lamprey movement when an odour was applied to (1) a tributary of a larger stream; and (2) half of a stream channel. Fewer sea lamprey entered the tributary and side of the river scented with sea lamprey tissue extract compared to the control treatment. Sea lamprey did not avoid the tributary and side of the river scented with PEA HCl. A final laboratory experiment found no difference in the avoidance response of sea lamprey to PEA HCl mixed with river water vs PEA HCl mixed with water from Lake Huron. As such, the lack of sea lamprey response to PEA HCl in the stream was unlikely to have been caused by the presence of the river water. Rather, the difference between laboratory and field results may be attributed to the complexity of the physical environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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