Development of a foraging model framework to reliably estimate daily food consumption by young fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a foraging model for young fishes that incorporates handling and digestion rate to estimate daily food consumption. Feeding trials were used to quantify functional feeding response, satiation, and gut evacuation rate. Once parameterized, the foraging model was then applied to evaluate effects of prey type, prey density, water temperature, and fish size on daily feeding rate by age-0 (19–70 mm) pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Prey consumption was positively related to prey density (for fish >30 mm) and water temperature, but negatively related to prey size and the presence of sand substrate. Model evaluation results revealed good agreement between observed estimates of daily consumption and those predicted by the model (r2 = 0.95). Model simulations showed that fish feeding on Chironomidae or Ephemeroptera larvae were able to gain mass, whereas fish feeding solely on zooplankton lost mass under most conditions. By accounting for satiation and digestive processes in addition to handling time and prey density, the model provides realistic estimates of daily food consumption that can prove useful for evaluating rearing conditions for age-0 fishes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".