Evidence of hatch‐time based growth compensation in the early life history of two salmonid fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial body size can indicate quality within-species, with large size increasing the likelihood of survival. However, some populations or individuals may have body size disadvantages due to spatial/temporal differences in temperature, photoperiod, or food. Across-populations, animals often have locally adapted physiology to compensate for relatively poor environmental influences on development and growth, while within-population individual behavioral adjustments can increase food intake after periods of deprivation and provide opportunities to catch up (growth compensation). Previous work has shown that growth compensation should include within-population differences related to short growing seasons due to delayed hatch time. We tested the hypothesis that individual fish that hatch later grow faster than those that hatch earlier. The relative magnitude of such a response was compared with growth variation among populations. We sampled young of the year Arctic charr and brook trout from five rivers in northern Labrador. Daily increments from otoliths were used to back-calculate size to a common age and calculate growth rates. Supporting the hypothesis, older fish were not larger at capture than younger fish because animals that hatched later grew faster, which may indicate age-based growth compensation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".