MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1856049093 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0029

Barriers to upstream passage by two migratory sculpins, prickly sculpin (<i>Cottus asper</i>) and coastrange sculpin (<i>Cottus aleuticus</i>), in northern Puget Sound lowland streams

2014· article· en· W1856049093 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael T. LeMoine, Leo R. Bodensteiner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHuxley College of the Environment
KeywordsSculpinCottusFisherySTREAMSTroutCottidaePopulationBiologyHabitatEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We identified and characterized barriers to the upstream distribution by prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) and coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus), based on their longitudinal distribution in 11 streams in the Puget Sound lowlands of Washington State. Eight streams had upstream limits associated with particular instream structures, and these were compared to distinguish features of barriers and non-barriers. In seven streams perch height greater than 15 cm resulted in a complete barrier. In one stream water velocity >4 m·s−1created a partial barrier. Five of the eight barriers were one- or two-step fish ladders installed to facilitate upstream passage of Pacific salmon and trout. Water quality, physical habitat, and the presence of other fishes were not related to the presence or absence of sculpin species. Fish passage criteria in western North American streams are based on the swimming abilities of Pacific salmon and trout, without consideration for other, less motile native fishes. Structures installed to surmount previously identified impediments to upstream migration continue to inhibit sculpin movement, resulting in loss of upstream habitats for adults, with potential consequences to population size and trophic dynamics.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→