MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1925845293 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0038

Population-specific ranges of oceanic migration for adult Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) documented using pop-up satellite archival tags

2013· article· en· W1925845293 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gilles L. Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoOceanographyEndangered speciesPopulationHabitatContinental shelfFisheryRange (aeronautics)GeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pop-up satellite archival tags identified differences in oceanic migration of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) kelts from three distinct Canadian populations. Kelts from two endangered populations were restricted to coastal areas near home rivers, whereas kelts from a persisting nearby population migrated to the Labrador Sea and towards the Flemish Cap. Kelts spent most time near the surface (0–5 m), but coastal migrants undertook repeated daytime dives (10–40 m), associated with feeding, upon marine entry and progress was slow (8–23 km·day−1). Distant migrants moved rapidly along the continental shelf (10–50 km·day−1) against prevailing ocean currents, remaining near the surface, except for deep dives (100–1000 m) when crossing ocean channels and at the shelf edge. Home range water temperatures (0–15 °C) indicated that kelts avoided warmer adjacent areas in summer. Kelts did not avoid cold coastal habitat (0–5 °C) in winter, but avoided the surface layers. Kelt migration mimicked that of postsmolts of similar origins, with water temperature acting as a directive or controlling factor. Containment of kelts from endangered populations in coastal habitat was probably responsible for the disappearance of repeat spawners.

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 score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations52
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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