MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986560875 · doi:10.1080/00028487.2012.675904

Spring and Summer Distribution and Habitat Use by Adult Threatened Spotted Gar in Rondeau Bay, Ontario, Using Radiotelemetry

2012· article· en· W1986560875 on OpenAlexafffundabout
W.R. Glass, Lynda D. Corkum, Nicholas E. Mandrak

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Windsor
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBayThreatened speciesCritical habitatHabitatMacrophyteEcologyWetlandGeographyFisheryEndangered speciesEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus is designated as threatened in Canada under the federal Species at Risk Act. Identification and protection of critical habitat is an important component of recovering species at risk. To understand the habitat utilization of the adult life stage of the spotted gar in Rondeau Bay, a shallow coastal wetland of Lake Erie, external radio transmitters were surgically attached to 37 specimens in May 2007. These individuals were tracked at 224 discrete locations throughout the spring and summer of 2007. Aquatic macrophytes were present at 201 (90%) of these sites. Habitat and water chemistry data were collected at all tracked locations occupied by spotted gars. On the basis of electivity indices, in spring spotted gars showed a strong preference for shallow (<0.5‐m) and deep (>2.5‐m) waters with pH values <8.5. In summer, strong preference was shown for areas with mixed macrophyte beds. Spotted gars were found to relate to specific depths and cover rather than to shoreline features in Rondeau Bay. The study results are being used by the spotted gar Recovery Team to identify critical habitat in Rondeau Bay. This critical habitat designation will be used to ensure the protection of habitat needed to preserve the species in Canada, in part by curtailing the removal of aquatic vegetation in Rondeau Bay.

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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207