MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766076784 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0186

Comparison of genetic and visual identification of cisco and lake whitefish larvae from Chaumont Bay, Lake Ontario

2017· article· en· W2766076784 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ellen George, Matthew P. Hare, Darran Crabtree, Brian F. Lantry, Lars G. Rudstam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoregonus clupeaformisCoregonusBaySalmoIchthyoplanktonFisherySalvelinusBiologyIdentification (biology)DNA barcodingEcologyLarvaZoologyTroutGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cisco (Coregonus artedi) are an important component of native food webs in the Great Lakes, and their restoration is instrumental to the recovery of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Difficulties with visual identification of larvae can confound early life history surveys, as cisco are often difficult to distinguish from lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). We compared traditional visual species identification methods with genetic identifications based on barcoding of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene for 726 coregonine larvae caught in Chaumont Bay, Lake Ontario. We found little agreement between the visual characteristics of cisco identified by genetic barcoding and the most widely used dichotomous key, and the considerable overlap in ranges of traditionally utilized metrics suggests that visual identification of coregonine larvae from Chaumont Bay is impractical. Coregonines are highly variable and plastic species and often display wide variations in morphometric characteristics across their broad range. This study highlights the importance of developing accurate, geographically appropriate larval identification methods to best inform cisco restoration and management efforts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207