Muskellunge Growth Potential in Northern Wisconsin: Implications for Trophy Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The growth potential of Muskellunge Esox masquinongy was evaluated by back-calculating growth histories from cleithra removed from 305 fish collected during 1995–2011 to determine whether it was consistent with trophy management goals in northern Wisconsin. Female Muskellunge had a larger mean asymptotic length (49.8 in) than did males (43.4 in). Minimum ultimate size of female Muskellunge (45.0 in) equaled the 45.0-in minimum length limit, but was less than the 50.0-in minimum length limit used on Wisconsin's trophy waters, while the minimum ultimate size of male Muskellunge (34.0 in) was less than the statewide minimum length limit. Minimum reproductive sizes for both sexes were less than Wisconsin's trophy minimum length limits. Mean growth potential of female Muskellunge in northern Wisconsin appears to be sufficient for meeting trophy management objectives and angler expectations. Muskellunge in northern Wisconsin had similar growth potential to those in Ontario populations, but lower growth potential than Minnesota's populations, perhaps because of genetic and environmental differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".