MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2797019324 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0341

What did you say about my mother? The complexities of maternally derived chemical signatures in otoliths

2018· article· en· W2797019324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jens C. Hegg, Brian P. Kennedy, Paul M. Chittaro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsJuvenileOtolithOncorhynchusStrontiumChinook windPopulationEcologyBiologyZoologyFisheryChemistryFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Connecting maternal migratory behavior with the behavior and ecology of their progeny can reveal important details in the ecology of a population. One method for linking maternal migration to early juvenile life history is through maternal chemistry recorded in otoliths. Despite the wide use of maternal signatures to infer anadromy, the duration and dynamics of maternal otolith signatures are not well understood. Shifts in the elemental ratios and strontium isotope ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) chemistry in otoliths from juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) correlate with the timing of hatch and emergence, respectively, indicating a chemical marker of these ontological stages. Additionally, analysis of maternal signatures show that maternally derived 87 Sr/ 86 Sr may be influenced by equilibration of the mother to fresh water, and in some cases the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr signatures of the eggs can shift substantially after being laid. These results provide guidance in separating maternal and juvenile signatures as researchers increasingly target early juvenile otolith chemistry. These results also caution against the use of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr alone as a marker of anadromy in populations with major inland migrations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→