MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244852844 · doi:10.1139/f99-262

Estimating food consumption rates of fish using a mercury mass balance model

2000· article· en· W4244852844 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marc Trudel, Alain Tremblay, Roger Schetagne, Joseph B. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy balanceFood consumptionMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Food intakeAnimal scienceFisheryBiologyEcologyToxicology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a simple method for estimating food consumption rates of fish in the field based on a mercury (Hg) mass balance model. This method requires the determination of fish age, size, and growth and Hg concentration in fish and their food. The model was validated using data obtained from a previously published laboratory experiment. A field test of the model showed that food consumption rates determined with the Hg mass balance model differed from independent estimates obtained with the 137 Cs method by only 0.6-16.1%. The model was applied to fish from various lakes in Quebec and Ontario. Food consumption rates estimated with the Hg mass balance model varied significantly both among species and among populations. Furthermore, female fish tended to eat 30-40% more food than males, probably to meet the larger energy requirement associated with egg production. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the Hg mass balance model was mostly responsive to variables that can be easily measured in the field, such as fish size and Hg concentration in fish and their food. By providing a low-effort approach to quantifying food consumption rates of fish in the field, this method may help to refine our understanding of the environmental factors that influence the quantity of food consumed by fish.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207