Predicting microhabitat selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon <i>Salmo salar</i> by the use of logistic regression and classification trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. We compared the capacity of logistic regression (LR) and classification tree (CT) models to predict microhabitat use and the summer distribution of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar , in two reaches of a small stream in eastern Quebec. 2. The models predicted the presence or absence of salmon at a location on the basis of habitat features (depth, current velocity, presence of instream and overhead cover, substratum particle size, and distance to stream bank) measured at that location. Models were validated by means of crossover field tests evaluating the performance of models developed for one reach (calibration trials) when applied to the other reach (validation trials). Model performance was evaluated with regard to accuracy, generality and ease of use and interpretation. Prediction maps based on habitat features were also built to compare the observed position of fish with those predicted by LR and CT models. 3. The spatial distribution of active fish differed markedly from that of resting fish, apparently as a result of the selection for water greater than about 30 cm depth by active fish and for the presence of rocky cover by resting fish. 4. All models made accurate predictions, validated by crossover trials. For both LR and CT models, the prediction maps reflected well the actual fish distributions. However, CT models were easier to build and interpret than LR models. CT models also had less variable performance and a smaller decline in predictive capability in crossover trials (for fish at rest), suggesting that they may be more transferable than LR models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".