Is the duration of the smolt window related to migration distance in coho salmon <i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological changes during the parr–smolt transformation were investigated in short distance (Chilliwack River) and long‐distance (Salmon River) migrating coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch populations in British Columbia, Canada. Biochemical and molecular indicators were used to monitor smolt development for fish reared at 10 °C throughout the spring. Fish grew well and developed the physical appearance of competent smolts. Both populations exhibited increases in gill Na+–K+‐ATPase activity (NKA; an important indicator of seawater tolerance) at the same date and the duration of the increase in enzyme activity did not differ between populations. Gill messenger (m)RNA copies for two isoforms of the NKA α subunit, α1a and α1b, showed significant changes and the pattern was similar between populations. Growth hormone receptor and prolactin receptor mRNA from the gill showed modest changes associated with smolting in the spring for both populations, suggesting that these may not be useful indicators of smolt development in hatchery‐reared O. kisutch. Consequently, the duration of the smolt window was not based on the region of origin in the present study.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".