Relationship between marine growth and sea survival of two anadromous salmonid fish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study found empirical evidence supporting the “growth–survival” paradigm in the marine phase of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). The paradigm postulates that larger or faster-growing individuals are more likely to survive than smaller or slower-growing conspecifics. The study employed long-term (25 year) capture data from a trap in the River Halselva in Norway during annual migration between marine and freshwater environments. Similar results were found for both species. Growth during the sea sojourn and return rates were positively correlated, linking increased survival with growth. Specific growth rate, survival, and duration of the sea sojourn of first-time migrants were correlated, suggesting that common environmental conditions at sea influence annual fish productivity. Freshwater and sea temperatures affected migration timing, whereas annual variation in marine growth and survival did not correlate with temperatures. This suggests that other factors such as variation in energy intake were the main source of annual growth variations. Moreover, the marine growth rate of the two species may signal annual overall fjord ecosystem production, especially related to their main prey.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".