Comparison of Catch Efficiencies between Black and Galvanized Minnow Traps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Minnow traps are widely used in aquatic ecology for the quantitative sampling of small-bodied fish. We used paired sampling stations to compare the catch efficiency of minnow traps constructed of galvanized steel with that of traps constructed of steel mesh covered with a black vinyl coating in field and laboratory conditions. Except for northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos in field sampling, the catch efficiency of the galvanized minnow traps was higher than that of the black traps. Catches of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus, creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus, and white sucker Catostomus commersonii were up to five times higher in the galvanized minnow traps than in the black ones. For the quantitative estimation of small-bodied fish, we recommend using only galvanized minnow traps to maximize catch efficiency. If data are intended for quantitative analyses, mixing minnow trap models in a field survey could lead to inappropriate catch comparisons. Received October 31, 2011; accepted January 23, 2012
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".