MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995944819 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2019-0122

Rapid early development and feeding benefits an invasive population of lake trout

2019· article· en· W2995944819 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lee G. Simard, J. Ellen Marsden, Robert E. Gresswell, Megan Euclide

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park ServiceU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsTroutSalvelinusPredationPopulationBiologyFisheryEcologyRange (aeronautics)Fish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were discovered in Yellowstone Lake in 1994 and their population expanded dramatically despite intensive suppression. The lake is species-depauperate, with no major lake trout embryo predators. We hypothesized that without this predation threat, lake trout free embryo feeding and growth may be greater than in their native range, leading to increased survival of age-0 individuals and rapid population growth. We compared length, developmental rate, and feeding patterns of lake trout free embryos captured at a spawning site in Yellowstone Lake with free embryos captured in their native range in Lake Champlain, Vermont. More embryos were feeding, contained more food, and were significantly longer at the same developmental stages in Yellowstone Lake. With an abundance of available food and minimal threat of predation, free embryos remained on the spawning site in Yellowstone Lake later into the summer than in Lake Champlain and achieved a greater maximum length before they dispersed. Greater food consumption and associated growth likely leads to high survival of lake trout free embryos in Yellowstone Lake, contributing to rapid population growth.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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