Using meta-analysis to derive a respiration model for Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) to assess bioenergetics requirements of juveniles in two Canadian rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard metabolic rates (SMRs) for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have been calculated independently for different life stages and populations, but the absence of a comprehensive SMR model limits its application for modelling the energy use or life stage-specific growth. Atlantic salmon respiration data were compiled from a meta-analysis of 26 publications, and exponential or optimal relationships were fitted to the metadata to estimate respiration equation parameters and generate confidence intervals dependent on temperature and body mass. While model parameters were significant for both models, mass-corrected standard metabolic rates (g O2·day−1) increased as a function of water temperature (°C) and decreased beyond ∼16 °C following an optimal relationship (AICoptimal = –9185.50 versus AICexponential = –8948.95; ΔAIC = 236.55). Juvenile Atlantic salmon growth (cohorts 1 and 2) from bioenergetics simulations did not vary between Little Southwest Miramichi and Northwest Miramichi rivers; however, variation between simulations using the different respiration models (i.e., exponential versus optimal) led to differences in the way fish allocate energy throughout the year. Results from this analysis will inform conservation efforts for the species throughout its current range and predict the energetic requirements at juvenile life stages.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".