Growth, condition, and swimming performance of juvenile Pacific herring with winter feeding rations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Juvenile fish winter mortality, whether through starvation, predation, or disease, depends in part on feeding history. Assessing mortality risk thus requires metrics that can distinguish well-fed from poorly fed individuals. To investigate the effects of winter feeding and spring re-feeding after winter fasting on young-of-the-year Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), captive herring were maintained on different feeding rations for 20 weeks under ambient winter and spring conditions and evaluated for differences in size, gut mass, RNA/DNA ratio, body composition, and swimming performance. Lipid and moisture levels were inversely related indicators of feeding history, differing most between full-ration and fasted herring. Fasted herring that were re-fed in spring had evidence of compensatory growth without impacting swimming performance. Minimal growth and reduced gut mass observed even among fully fed herring suggest limits to winter feeding benefits. Metabolically processing stored fat rather than foraging and incurring greater predation risk may thus be an advantageous strategy regardless of winter food availability. Mortalities due to starvation and possibly disease were highest among small herring across rations, supporting the importance of size-dependent winter mortality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".