MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612955325 · doi:10.1139/f2011-132

Individual-based analyses reveal high repeatability in timing and location of reproduction in lake sturgeon (<i>Acipenser fulvescens</i>)

2012· article· en· W2612955325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick S. Forsythe, James A. Crossman, Nora M. Bello, Edward A. Baker, Kim T. Scribner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesU.S. Geological SurveyMichigan State University
KeywordsLake sturgeonAcipenserRepeatabilityBiologySturgeonFisherySemelparity and iteroparityReproductive seasonSeasonal breederReproductionEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have quantified the repeatability of reproductive decisions by individuals or assessed their relationship with environmental variables over multiple seasons for long-lived iteroparous fish species. Using individual-based data collected for 678 lake sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) over 8 consecutive years, we evaluated hypotheses regarding spawning periodicity and repeatability of spawning location, spawning time, and environmental cues associated with spawning. At our study site (Upper Black River, northern Michigan, USA), interspawning interval differed between males (2.3 ± 0.08 years) and females (3.7 ± 0.16 years), but was not significantly related to age. Individual spawning behavior was highly repeatable with respect to spawning time (relative day within the spawning season) for both sexes regardless of size or age, but was less repeatable, though still significant, relative to water temperature, river discharge, and lunar phase. Breeding area was also repeatable, with individuals spawning earlier in the season selecting locations further upstream than those spawning later. Repeatability in spawning times and locations suggest that subpopulation differentiation may develop among different spawning groups, even within small and spatially contiguous areas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations84
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207