Get big fast! Patterns of first-year growth in seven species of minnows (Leuciscidae) from south-central Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common patterns of growth are presented for the young-of-year of seven species of minnows (Leuciscidae) based on analysis of daily growth increments in the microstructure of otoliths. All seven species show a period of growth during May–September and reach approximately the same size (~4.3 cm) entering their first winter. The first annulus appears to develop in May. The most striking feature, observed in all seven species, is a sudden and marked increase in rate of growth at ~25 days post-hatch. The first 21 days of this surge in growth account for 29% of the first-year’s growth. The growth surge may result from reaching a developmental milestone, such as the ossification of fin rays or flexion of the notochord that allows for greater mobility and capture of invertebrate prey. Given that small size is negatively associated with survival in juvenile fishes, achieving the growth surge in early life is likely important for survival. These results may be broadly applicable to leuciscids, an ecologically important and understudied group of fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".