MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3138571341 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2021-0025

Energetic state and the continuum of migratory tactics in brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>)

2021· article· en· W3138571341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim Birnie‐Gauvin, Martin H. Larsen, Kim Aarestrup

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoBrown troutTroutFisherySalmonidaeBiologyEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative migratory tactics, like partial migration, are common in many taxa. The proximate and ultimate drivers underpinning these strategies are unclear, though factors like condition and energetic status have been posited as important predictors. We sampled and PIT-tagged 1882 wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) prior to the first so-called decision window and explored the links between migratory tactics (residency, autumn or spring migration) and body metrics (length and condition), lipids (triglycerides and cholesterol), and sex in 150 randomly selected individuals. We found that more females adopted the autumn and spring migration tactic than males, while more males adopted the residency tactic than females, likely reflecting sex-biased benefits in anadromy. We also found that autumn migrants were in poorer condition prior to the presumed first decision window than spring migrants and residents. Lastly, we found that both condition and cholesterol were positively correlated to the timing of migration, such that individuals in poorer condition and (or) with lower cholesterol migrated earlier. Collectively, these results suggest that energy depletion is an important factor in determining migratory strategy, including timing.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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