MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283640084 · doi:10.1111/jfb.15146

Juvenile‐to‐adult transition invariances in fishes: Perspectives on proximate and ultimate causation

2022· article· en· W4283640084 on OpenAlexaff
Yolanda E. Morbey, Daniel Pauly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntraspecific competitionEcologyMaturity (psychological)Evolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To bridge physiological and evolutionary perspectives on size at maturity in fishes, the authors focus on the approximately invariant ratio between the estimated oxygen supply at size at maturity (Qm) relative to that at asymptotic size (Q∞) among species within a taxonomic group, and show how two important theories related to this phenomenon complement each other. Gill‐oxygen limitation theory proposes a mechanistic basis for a universal oxygen supply‐based threshold for maturation, which applies among and within species. On the contrary, the authors show that a generalisation of life‐history theory for the invariance of size at maturity (Lm) relative to asymptotic size (L∞) can provide an evolutionary rationale for an oxygen‐limited maturation threshold (Qm/Q∞). Extending previous inter‐ and intraspecific analyses, the authors show that maturation invariances also occur in lake whitefishCoregonus clupeaformis(Mitchill 1818), but at both scales, theory seems to underestimate the value of the maturation threshold. They highlight some key uncertainties in the model that should be addressed to help resolve the mismatch.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207