MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482755957 · doi:10.1139/f09-129

Performance of temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria to predict habitat use by lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)This paper is part of the series “Forty Years of Aquatic Research at the Experimental Lakes Area”.

2009· article· en· W1482755957 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John M. Plumb, Paul J. Blanchfield

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalvelinusTroutHabitatEnvironmental scienceFisheryEcologyBorealFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared theoretical habitat volumes, determined from traditional combinations of temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration (DO) boundaries, with in situ habitat use by acoustically tagged lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ). The widely used criteria of 8–12 °C underestimated lake trout habitat use by 68%–80%. Instead, combined temperature (<12 or 15 °C) and DO (>4 or 6 mg·L–1) criteria most closely matched lake trout habitat use, had a similar seasonal trend as the tagged fish, suggested modest reductions (5% of total lake volume) in habitat during a warmer year, and performed best when the constraints of temperature and DO were most limiting. All data were collected in a small boreal shield lake (27 ha, zmax = 21 m) at the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, Canada, during two contrasting periods of thermal stratification (2003: warmer and longer; 2004: cooler and shorter), providing an assessment of observed and theoretical habitat volumes over current environmental extremes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations108
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207