Comparison of absorption efficiency and metabolic rate between wild and aquaculture oysters (Crassostrea virginica)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Eastern Canada, discussions about the adaptation of a hatchery-based industry for oyster aquaculture has led to the implementation of selective breeding programs. As part of this process, traits of interest related to physiological energetics—absorption efficiency and metabolic rate, were compared between two oyster sources (wild, aquaculture) originating from the Bouctouche estuary (NB, Canada). Both trials were carried out separately following a thermal challenge (20, 30 °C). Absorption efficiency was not significantly different for oyster source or temperature, but a high level of inter-individual variability was found with a range observed between −37.8 to 95.2 %, which indicates the potential for selection and improvement of this trait within the industry’s existing oyster production stocks. Metabolic rate, in terms of aerobic capacity, was also not considered significantly different; however, standard and maximum metabolic rates were highly significant for oyster source with lower values for individuals from aquaculture. These results indicate that wild and aquaculture oysters are not significantly different in terms of growth capacity, but that aquaculture oysters have a lower oxygen demand than wild oysters, suggesting a reduced ecological footprint. The lower standard metabolism of aquaculture oysters also suggests that these individuals could be more resistant to stressful conditions, as their minimal energy level to maintain their vital function is lower.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".