Nature-Like and Conventional Fishways: Alternative Concepts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many in-stream structures result in obstruction to fish migrations, thus preventing access to spawning grounds and other habitat areas which provide life cycle requirements for reproduction, rearing and shelter. Frequently, fishways are constructed at the site of the obstruction to provide access to habitat for various species. Conventional approaches to fish passage generally consist of ’hard’ structures (e.g., concrete) or physical transport systems. Through experience and research in the laboratory and the field, much has been learned about the design requirements of these fishways. Recent attention has shifted to the use of ’soft’ materials (e.g., rock), to try for a more ecologically-friendly fish passage method. The associated structures are referred to as nature-like fishways since they attempt to mimick nature. Considerable research in nature-like fishways is needed to ensure their successful application and widespread adoption.In this paper we give an overview of conventional and nature-like fish passage technology for river water projects. Included in the paper are discussions on basic fish passage requirements, conventional fishways, nature-like fishways, and guidance in selecting a fishway type. Comments are also provided on the need for further research in volitional fish passage technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".