Resolving Some of the Complexity of a Mixed-Origin Walleye Population in the East Basin of Lake Erie Using a Mark–Recapture Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At least two genetically distinct populations of walleye Sander vitreus reproduce in Lake Erie: one west-basin-origin population and one east-basin-origin population. Each year, some west-basin-origin walleyes migrate to the east basin and create a mixed-origin walleye population. Uncertainties associated with this migratory behavior make it difficult to describe the dynamics of the east-basin-origin population. We used mark–recapture analysis to estimate the dynamics of the east-basin-origin walleye population and to measure the contribution of west-basin-origin walleyes to the total walleye harvest in the east basin. Compared with the west-basin-origin walleyes, the east-basin-origin walleyes experienced lower fishing pressure, lower natural mortality, and a higher survival rate. On average, the west-basin-origin walleye migrants comprised about 90% of the annual harvest in the east basin. The number of the west-basin-origin walleyes migrating to the east basin was linearly related to their abundance. Walleyes showed a strong fidelity to their spawning sites. This study provided an approach to the assessment of population dynamics and the management of walleye fisheries in the east basin of Lake Erie. Received June 7, 2010; accepted December 30, 2010
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".