MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579882188 · doi:10.1017/s0025315416000175

Diet of common dolphinfish (<i>Coryphaena hippurus</i>) in the Pacific coast of Ecuador

2016· article· en· W2579882188 on OpenAlexaff
José Luis Varela, Cristhian Ronald Lucas-Pilozo, Manuel M. González‐Duarte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredationScombridaeFisheryPelagic zoneInvertebrateCrustaceanZoologyTunaEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diet and the feeding habits of the common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) in the Pacific coast of Ecuador was assessed by examining 320 stomachs of individuals ranging from 51 to 149 cm in total length. Fish was the predominant prey group in the diet (Alimentary Index, %AI = 95.39) followed by cephalopods (%AI = 4.13) and crustaceans (%AI = 0.48). Among the 17 prey items that make up the dolphinfish diet, the Exocoetidae family was the most important prey (%AI = 57.13),Dosidicus gigasbeing the most abundant invertebrate species (%AI = 7.65). Feeding patterns were evaluated using the graphing method of Amundsen, which suggested that this species shows a varying degree of specialization on different prey taxa. Thus, while some species were unimportant and rare (Hippocampus hippocampus, Lagocephalus lagocephalus, Gobiidae andArgonautasp.), several dolphinfishes showed a high degree of specialization on Scombridae,Pleuroncodes planipes, Portunus xantusiiandOpisthonema libertate. Size-related and temporal shifts in dietary composition were investigated by PERMANOVA analysis, which showed wide variations among size classes and periods of capture. The results of this study indicate that the common dolphinfish is an opportunistic feeder, which is capable of consuming a wide variety of schooling epipelagic organisms.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207