MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Population Demographics of Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye) in the Lower Tallapoosa River

2007· article· en· W1983775235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Costas T. Katechis, Peter C. Sakaris, Elise R. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueSoutheastern Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
KeywordsFecundityPopulation growthPopulationDemographicsHabitatRange (aeronautics)GeographyBiologyEcologyFisheryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe age structure, growth, and fecundity of Hiodon tergisus (Mooneye) from the lower Tallapoosa River, AL. Mooneye (N = 49, 214–316 mm total length, 79–284 g) were aged using otoliths, and a von Bertalanffy growth model was derived for the species (L∞ = 316, K = 0.285, to = −0.7). Growth rates of Mooneye differed between the Tallapoosa River population and a previously studied population from the northern extent of the species' range (Assiniboine River, MB, Canada). In addition, fecundity of Mooneye from the Tallapoosa River was similar to the northern population, ranging from 5321 to 7432 eggs per female. Because the species is declining throughout its range in Alabama, we recommend that managers use our findings in conservation efforts. Future studies should investigate how hydrology influences the spawning success and early growth and development of Mooneye in regulated systems. More information about this species is needed regarding their early life history, including early growth, survival, and habitat use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoutheastern NaturalistSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207