MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Winter movements and habitat use of riverine brown trout, white sucker and common carp in relation to flooding and ice break‐up

2001· article· en· W1982056440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard S. Brown, G. Power, S. Beltaoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown troutSalmoCommon carpFisheryHabitatSuckerBiologyTributaryTroutEcologyEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)CyprinusGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Movement of radio‐tagged riverine brown trout Salmo trutta , white sucker Catostomus commersoni and common carp Cyprinus carpio in the Grand River, Ontario, was minimal during the winter except during periods of high water discharge or the break‐up of river ice. Ice break‐up and flooding occur when southern air masses penetrate northwards in winter and as air temperatures increase in spring. Both white suckers and common carp moved the longest distances, generally in a downstream direction, during flooding and ice break‐up. Brown trout moved less during these times. All three species had positive relationships between distance moved and water discharge. During periods of high water discharge and ice break‐up, white suckers and common carp used backwater habitats more and main channel habitats less than during periods of low water discharge. During high flows, brown trout tended to use runs more and pools less. The break‐up of river ice and accompanying flooding resulted in several fish being stranded on the floodplain. Backwater habitats appear to be important areas of refuge for riverine fishes during periods of flooding and ice break‐up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207