Short-term survival and growth of American Eel elvers marked with visible implant elastomer tags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags are commonly used as a cost-effective tool for marking small fish, making them valuable in mark–recapture studies. It is crucial to quantify the impact of tagging procedures on fish survival to address inferential bias in mark–recapture studies. We assessed marking-related mortality and growth in American Eel Anguilla rostrata elvers in a 40-day laboratory experiment, following VIE tag application. Methods There were 500 elvers (80–149 mm) that were divided into four treatment groups and one control group. Treatment groups were tagged with two tags in three body locations (anterior, central, posterior on left bilateral side) or with two tags in all three locations, while the control group remained untagged. Eels were retained in experimental tanks, and mortality rates were compared. Result The VIE tagging did not significantly affect survival, which was 90.9% across all treatment groups and 92% for the untagged control group; nor did it affect growth. Conclusion The application of VIE tags on various body parts should be a safe and effective method for marking American Eel elvers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".