MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7045430208

Application of otolith increment analysis to the study of maturation timing in female kokanee salmon

2014· article· en· W7045430208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtolithSexual maturityFish <Actinopterygii>Life historyMaturity (psychological)SalmonidaeReproductionHeritability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I investigated the influence of growth history on the expression of female reproductive tactics in kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) from Meadow Creek Spawning Channel, British Columbia, Canada. Female kokanee either arrive at the spawning area with red nuptial coloration, or less commonly, sexually immature with silver coloration. Silver- and red-arriving females may reflect different reproductive strategies in the population. I used otolith increment measurements to determine fish growth. In contrast to earlier studies, silver- and red-arriving females in 2013 did not differ in age at maturity (mostly were age 3+) or size at maturity (length from eye to tail, silver: 243.50 ± SE = 0.26 mm, red: 247.06 ± SE = 0.19 mm). In terms of females maturing at age 3+, silver- and red-arriving fish did not show a difference in any size-at-age or growth increment-at-age. This study indicates that growth is unlikely to influence the reproductive tactic adopted by spawning female kokanee salmon. Further research should focus on energy allocation differences during the pre-reproductive stages, and the heritability of the silver- and red-arriving tactics in female kokanee.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species→French-language works237,207→