Is There Evidence for Biologically Significant Size‐Selective Mortality of Coho Salmon During the First Winter of Marine Residence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined whether individual Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in southern British Columbia had to achieve a sufficient size (“critical size”) by the end of the first marine summer to be able to survive through the ensuing fall and winter. Descriptive statistics of seasonal weight distributions were determined. The expected body weight of an individual sampled in one season was projected to the next season with a growth equation tested on Pink Salmon O. gorbuscha. Projected weight frequencies were then compared with observed weight frequencies in the next season to evaluate whether it was necessary to invoke size‐selective mortality to explain the observed weight frequencies in the next season. Based on estimated growth between July and September, a maximum of 9% of the stock in the Strait of Georgia may have been subjected to size‐selective mortality—far lower than the 63–74% mortality estimated in previous studies. Likewise, there was basically no size‐selective mortality between September and November, yet 48% mortality had been reported previously for this period. We could find no evidence of any critical size that age‐1.0 Coho Salmon juveniles in southern British Columbia had to attain by the end of the first summer or fall of marine rearing to enable them to survive the subsequent winter in the ocean. Thus, there was no support for the hypothesis that Coho Salmon had to achieve a sufficient (critical) size by the end of the first marine summer or fall to be able to survive during the winter of their first year of ocean rearing. Received May 31, 2016; accepted January 18, 2017 Published online March 15, 2017
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".