Development and validation of numerical habitat models for juveniles of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the ability of numerical habitat models (NHM) to predict the distribution of juveniles of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a river. NHMs comprise a hydrodynamic model (to predict water depth and current speed for any given flow) and a biological model (to predict habitat quality for fish using water depth, current speed, and substrate composition). We implemented NHMs with a biological model based on (i) preference curves defined by the ratio of the use to the availability of physical conditions and (ii) a multivariate logistic regression that distinguished between the physical conditions used and avoided by fish. Preference curves provided a habitat suitability index (HSI) ranging from 0 to 1, and the logistic regression produced a habitat probabilistic index (HPI) representing the probability of observing a parr under given physical conditions. Pearson's correlation coefficients between HSI and local densities of parr ranged from 0.39 to 0.63 depending on flow. Corresponding values for HPI ranged from 0.81 to 0.98. We concluded that HPI may be a more powerful biological model than HSI for predicting local variations in fish density, forecasting fish distribution patterns, and performing summer habitat modelling for Atlantic salmon juveniles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".