{"id":"W2963061497","doi":"10.1139/cjfas-2019-0001","title":"Evaluating whether metapopulation structure benefits endangered diadromous fishes","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences","topic":"Fish Ecology and Management Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":9,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Fisheries and Oceans Canada","funders":"","keywords":"Metapopulation; Endangered species; Fish migration; Population; Ecology; Salmo; Productivity; Extinction (optical mineralogy); Abundance (ecology); Population fragmentation; Biology; Fishery; Habitat; Biological dispersal; Genetic diversity; Fish <Actinopterygii>","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001114771,0.0002212028,0.0002385824,0.0003581538,0.000355452,0.0006010692,0.0005856568,0.000574878,0.001395804],"category_scores_gemma":[0.005166616,0.0001787862,0.0004504905,0.0002041848,0.0003909507,0.001007059,0.0005495389,0.0003597547,0.00006055796],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00134361,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0006486229,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009459906,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02974026,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9997436,0.0001151733,0.00001506179,0.00005142186,0.00001984271,0.00005501655],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9983382,0.0008947009,0.0002629764,0.0001367192,0.0001362509,0.0002310384],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0004144406,0.0002670219,0.5564094,0.00009190774,0.0004375494,0.0002220119,0.000240067,0.4194764,0.005371387,0.00509062,0.0003096492,0.01166954],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001067649,0.0009334896,0.3271337,0.00002709519,0.0003172662,0.0001356306,0.0007186651,0.6622828,0.001260474,0.006578536,0.0004680202,0.00003754483],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9989925,0.00002366173,0.0005521197,0.00004892437,0.00000221087,0.000002948838,0.00004012601,0.000004579418,0.0003328876],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9996482,0.000008736743,0.0002608403,0.00000908604,6.046547e-7,0.000002029565,0.00002461936,0.000001084542,0.00004486232],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9905401,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.01880968,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.02943278949013016,"score_gpt":0.2444886629077746,"score_spread":0.2150558734176445,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}