MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900694050 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0556

Relationship between water transparency and walleye (<i>Sander vitreus</i>) muscle glycolytic potential in northwestern Ontario lakes

2018· article· en· W2900694050 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicholas B. Edmunds, Timothy Bartley, Amanda Caskenette, Frédéric Laberge, Kevin S. McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationForagingBiologyFisheryApex predatorEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piscivorous predators at the apex of aquatic food webs are thought to exhibit foraging behaviours that depend on environmental conditions. Walleye (Sander vitreus), for example, is a freshwater predator that is most active under low light conditions. This study examined walleye resource use and swimming activity across lakes located in northwestern Ontario representing a gradient of water transparency. Muscle glycolytic potential, an index of swimming activity, was estimated by the activity of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). We show that walleye white muscle LDH activity increased with lake water transparency, but that this relationship is not determined by the use of nearshore resources, estimated from δ13C stable isotope signatures, or by prey abundance. On the other hand, walleye muscle LDH activity decreased with increasing prey size, and prey size was larger in lakes of low water transparency. These results support a positive relationship between water transparency and swimming activity in walleye, with prey size as an important factor contributing to this effect.

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)0.001
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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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