MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2971688422 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0380

Assessing the relationship between diet and size-at-age in Pacific halibut (<i>Hippoglossus stenolepis</i>) using δ<sup>13</sup>C and δ<sup>15</sup>N analysis

2019· article· en· W2971688422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathan Wolf, Sarah R. Webster, Jeffery M. Welker, Bradley P. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlaska Department of Fish and GameMassachusetts Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsHalibutδ13CTrophic levelBiologyRange (aeronautics)δ15NFisheryEcologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>Stable isotope ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecological mechanisms driving an observed decline in the mean size-at-age of adult Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the eastern North Pacific Ocean have yet to be defined. Here, we present the results of a study designed to investigate the relationship between one potential mechanism — diet — and size-at-age using carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis. Our results indicate significant differences in the skeletal muscle δ13C and δ15N values between size-at-age categories for each sex, with larger-size-at-age fish consuming diets with higher δ15N values, indicating higher trophic level feeding. Analysis of Bayesian standard ellipse areas showed that for females, intermediate size-at-age categories have the largest dietary range. For males, the largest dietary range was observed in the largest size-at-age category. Our results suggest a size-based stratification in dietary strategy for Pacific halibut with implications for observed declines in size-at-age.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicIsotope Analysis in Ecology→French-language works237,207→