Distribution and movement of Bay of Quinte Walleye in relation to temperature, prey availability and Dreissenid colonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial and seasonal distribution of walleye were surveyed with gillnets in the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario during 1992–2008. Walleye movements were determined with tagging in the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario surrounding Prince Edward County during fall 1998–2003, and with recaptures from angling and other fisheries in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River during 1998–2003. Immature walleye (age <4 yr) were abundant in the upper Bay of Quinte from April to November, moved small distances down the bay during summer, and were less frequently observed in Lake Ontario. Mature walleye (age >4 yr) were found in the upper Bay of Quinte during spring, and farther down the bay during summer. Older mature walleye (age-7+) were observed in eastern Lake Ontario during summer. The tagging data were consistent in showing that older fish moved down the Bay of Quinte toward Lake Ontario during summer. During fall mature walleye moved back up the Bay of Quinte either from Lake Ontario or the lower bay. Immature and mature walleye moved farther up the Bay of Quinte during fall to spring, again with older walleye tending to move longer distances. Walleye migration between the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario during spring and fall was consistent with avoiding warm temperature in the upper bay, and foraging on alewife in the lower bay and Lake Ontario during summer and young-of the-year fishes such as gizzard shad during fall. The distribution of walleye between the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario did not change after dreissenid colonization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".