MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2811285943 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0032

Evaluation of lethal and nonlethal assessment methods of muscle fat content in European eel (<i>Anguilla anguilla</i>)

2018· article· en· W2811285943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan‐Dag Pohlmann, Marko Freese, Stefan Reiser, Reinhold Hanel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThünen-Institut
KeywordsFisheryBiologyEndangered speciesZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual fat reserves are considered a key factor for the reproductive fitness of the endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla). In contrast with most established standards, microwave measurements enable the determination of fat contents without sacrificing individual fish, offering a broad range of ecological applications. To test the reliability of nonlethal assessment methods of the muscle fat content in eels, the performance of microwave measurements was compared with the prevailing standard of measuring fat in a distinct subsample of muscle tissue by solvent extraction. Results indicate that either method is prone to error due to physiological and morphological changes during the sexual maturation of eels. Since microwave measurements were systematically affected by life stage and body length, it was possible to calibrate the method accordingly, putting it at least on par with the prevailing standard and further facilitating its use for scientific purposes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species→French-language works237,207→