Juvenile geoduck (Panopea generosa) predator protection with tubes: Assessing effects of tube diameter, length, and mesh size on growth and survivorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intertidal culture of the Pacific geoduck clam (Panopea generosa) involves planting juveniles in the sediment in tubes covered with mesh for predator protection. We examined the interactive effects of tube diameter (10.2 and 15.2 cm), tube length (25.4 and 30.5 cm), and mesh size (6 and 12 mm) on percent shell-length increase, percent wet-weight increase, and percent survivorship of cultured juvenile geoducks (mean shell length ± SD = 29.6 ± 4.8 mm) over 12 months. Percent increase in shell length and wet weight were both significantly affected by the main effects of tube diameter and mesh size, as well as the interaction between the two factors. Shell length was also significantly affected by the main effect of tube length. Geoducks were significantly shorter and lighter in the 10-cm/6-mm (diameter/mesh) treatment than in the 10-cm/12-mm, 15-cm/6-mm, and 15-cm/12-mm treatments. The 25-cm-long tubes were associated with significantly longer (but not heavier) individuals than the 30-cm ones. Average survivorship (±SE) ranged from 38.3 ± 7.1% to 55.0 ± 6.5% (mean ± SD: 47.7 ± 2.5%) in the eight treatments and was not significantly affected by any main effects or interaction terms. The results have implications for commercial intertidal geoduck culture in British Columbia (Canada) and Washington (USA) where clams are protected with solid plastic tubes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".