MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986819353 · doi:10.1002/aqc.1063

Impact of recreational power boating on two populations of northern map turtles (<i>Graptemys geographica</i>)

2009· article· en· W1986819353 on OpenAlexaffabout
Grégory Bulté, Marie-Andrée Carrière, Gabriel Blouin‐Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationWildlifeGeographyHabitatPopulationJuvenileFisheryEcologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recreational power boating is growing in popularity in North America. This activity is known to have lethal and sub‐lethal effects on aquatic wildlife and freshwater turtles may be particularly sensitive to this activity. This study reports on patterns of traumatic injuries inflicted by powerboat propellers to northern map turtles ( Graptemys geographica ) from two sites differing in boat traffic intensity in Ontario, Canada. The relative vulnerability of turtles was assessed, in light of seasonal patterns in boat traffic, as a function of sex‐ and age‐specific movement patterns, habitat use, and basking behaviour obtained by radio‐telemetry. Population viability analyses (PVA) were also conducted to evaluate the potential demographic consequences of mortality induced by powerboats. The prevalence of propeller injuries was two to nine times higher in adult females than in adult males and juvenile females. Patterns of movement, habitat use, and aquatic basking indicated that adult females are more exposed to collisions with boats. PVA showed that boat‐induced mortality in adult females could lead to rapid population extinction if the risk of mortality when hit by a boat is greater than 10%. The results of this study showed that recreational power boating is a serious threat to northern map turtles, even under moderate boat traffic. The need to adopt measures restricting boat traffic in areas important to turtles is discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207