Contribution and Relative Survival of Age-0 Walleyes Stocked at Two Sizes in Six Eastern Ontario Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Size at stocking is believed to be a critical factor in determining the success of stocking events for many species. We examined the relative performance of summer (reared extensively, planted in June, average weight < 1 g) and fall (reared intensively, planted in September, average weight ∼ 10 g) walleye Stizostedion vitreum fingerlings stocked at a 5:1 summer-to-fall fingerling ratio into six small lakes in Eastern Ontario. One lake was stocked concurrently during 1990-1993, and three lakes were given paired plants in 1992 and 1993; stocking assessments occurred at age 1 and as adults in 1997. Two additional lakes were stocked in 1998; in one the stocking failed, and in the other the stocking was assessed at age 1. Walleyes planted as summer fingerlings were significantly larger at first annulus formation than those planted as fall fingerlings, but these size differences disappeared in the adult fish recovered 4-7 years after the paired plants. By the time the fish were adults, summer fingerlings were more abundant in the samples of all four lakes assessed to that stage. After accounting for the difference in stocking ratios, the relative survival to adulthood did not differ between the two fingerling types, except in Warrens Lake where summer fingerlings had a greater probability of survival. Given the relatively high cost of raising walleyes to the fall fingerling stage, we recommend that summer fingerlings be used when stocking walleyes into small, inland lakes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".