Validation of Morphological Characteristics Used for Field Identification of Bull Trout × Brook Trout Hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus are of conservation concern throughout much of their range, in part because of displacement by and hybridization with nonnative brook trout S. fontinalis. Hybridization between these species can complicate efforts to control brook trout because hybrids are often difficult to distinguish from parental species. Here, we assess the reliability of five morphological characteristics that were used to identify bull trout × brook trout hybrids among 106 fish collected from Quirk Creek, Alberta. Genetic analysis of up to three microsatellite loci suggested that hybrids were correctly identified 95% of the time and that no bull trout were mistaken for hybrids. Visual inspection of photographs of hybrids suggested that dorsal fin markings were the most reliable morphological characteristic for identifying hybrids. Based on these results, we recommend that field identification of bull trout × brook trout hybrids be based solely on dorsal fin markings. Received November 20, 2010; accepted March 21, 2011
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".