The effect of dietary thiaminase on two strains of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) currently stocked in Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thiamine deficient lake trout had a lower SGR compared to thiamine replete individuals, as was evident in both strains (Figure 2).However, there was no difference in survival between treatments or strains.• A reduced SGR may have significant implications for lake trout restoration efforts in Lake Ontario, since body size is associated with swimming performance, foraging efficiency, and predator avoidance, which is linked to fish survival (4, 8).• Our results also suggest that thiamine deficient trout of the Seneca Lake strain have a higher SGR compared to thiamine deficient trout from the Lake Superior strain.• Compared to Lake Superior, Seneca Lake contains a much more abundant population of alewife.Therefore, the Seneca Lake strain may have a local adaptation for thiaminase tolerance and would likely experience higher survival rates in the Lake Ontario environment where alewife comprise the majority of lake trout diets (9).• Future research should explore the effects of dietary thiaminase on cardiac and muscular performance, since the neurological and cardiovascular systems of fish are known to be largely affected by a thiamine deficiency (6).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".