MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2773688979 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0280

Temperature regimes, growth, and food consumption for female and male adult walleye in Lake Huron and Lake Erie: a bioenergetics analysis

2017· article· en· W2773688979 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Charles P. Madenjian, Todd A. Hayden, Tyler B. Peat, Christopher S. Vandergoot, David G. Fielder, Ann Marie Gorman, Steven A. Pot­hoven, John M. Dettmers, Steven J. Cooke, Yingming Zhao, Charles C. Krueger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryCarleton University
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsBioenergeticsFisheryEnvironmental scienceFood consumptionEnergy expenditureOceanographyEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioenergetics modeling was used to assess the relative importance of food availability and water temperature in determining walleye (Sander vitreus) growth. Temperature regimes experienced by both female and male adult walleye in three basins of Lake Huron and in Lake Erie were determined by use of surgically implanted temperature loggers and acoustic telemetry. Temperatures experienced by walleye were higher in Lake Erie than in Lake Huron. Walleye from Lake Erie grew at nearly double the rate of walleye from Lake Huron, and mass at age for adult females averaged about 50% greater than that for adult males in both lakes. Food consumption rate for an average adult walleye in Lake Erie was nearly twice as high as that in Lake Huron. Interbasin and interlake variability in temperature regimes accounted for a moderate degree of variability in walleye growth. We concluded that the driver for faster growth in Lake Erie compared with Lake Huron was higher food availability in Lake Erie compared with Lake Huron. The sex difference in temperature regimes explained 15% of the sex difference in Lake Erie walleye growth.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→