MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246383668 · doi:10.1139/z00-006

The reproductive cycle of male Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i> L.) from Placentia Bay, Newfoundland

2000· article· en· W4246383668 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rick M. Rideout, Margaret Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGadusGonadDevelopment of the gonadsAtlantic codSpermBayZoologyPopulationAnimal scienceFisheryAnatomyFish <Actinopterygii>BotanyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of the reproductive cycle of male Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) from Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, was determined from histological gonad samples collected throughout the year. Cycles in gonad mass, whole mass, and somatic mass indices were also determined. Results were consistent with a spring spawning population, with males having testes filled with spermatozoa as early as January. There was a short resting period following spermiation, during which residual sperm was resorbed, followed by rapid development so that some sperm was again evident in the testes as early as November. At first, the presence of spermatozoa was accompanied by cells in all other stages of development, but by spermiation the testes were filled mostly with spermatozoa. Gonad size was largest in April, smallest in October, and increased steeply again in November. Energy for gonad growth came from food intake, as well as liver lipid stores. Gonad development was, for the most part, finished prior to the winter reduction in feeding intensity.

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 score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207