MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401367637 · doi:10.1139/facets-2023-0177

Effect of acclimation temperature on thermal tolerance between American lobster (<i>Homarus americanus</i>) collected in different lobster fishing areas in Atlantic Canada

2024· article· en· W4401367637 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ryan A. Horricks, K. Fraser Clark, Kiersten Watson, Leah M. Lewis‐McCrea, G. K. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterAcclimatizationFishingFisheryRange (aeronautics)Climate changeOceanographyBiologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyCrustaceanEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American lobster fishery is the most economically significant commercial fishery in Atlantic Canada and takes place in waters that are warming due to climate change. Lobster are poikilotherms that tolerate a wide range of seasonal temperatures with an optimal range of 12–18 °C. Lobster in the Canadian Maritimes may be naturally acclimated to a wide range of temperatures and thus, could have a wide range of thermal tolerance that may be distinct across regions. The present study used non-invasive open-source tools to explore differences in thermal tolerance in real time between geographically separated lobster populations from around the Canadian Maritimes. Lobsters were acquired from six lobster fishing areas in the Canadian Maritimes and acclimated to either warm (15 °C) or cold (5 °C) water for two weeks before the onset of thermal trials. Geographic origin was not a significant predictor of estimated thermal maximum, while acclimation temperature was a significant predictor. These results suggest that thermal tolerance is more strongly linked to acclimation temperature than to geographic region.

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 score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207