MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interhabitat and instream movements of large Atlantic salmon parr in a Newfoundland watershed in winter

2003· article· en· W1997628992 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martha J. Robertson, K. D. Clarke, D. A. Scruton, Jennifer Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoFluvialDiel vertical migrationHabitatFisheryDuskOceanographyOverwinteringBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radio‐telemetry was used to investigate movement of large, mainly mature male (80%) Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr in Stoney River, Newfoundland during early winter (November; water temperature 6·0 ± 0·1° C) and mid‐winter (January to February; 0·8 ± 0·0° C). Site fidelity of parr in early winter was low. Parr moved between fluvial and lacustrine habitats and were active throughout the diel cycle. Parr caught in fluvial habitats in mid‐winter were smaller and younger than parr caught in early winter. Site fidelity of parr in mid‐winter was greater than in early winter. Parr in mid‐winter moved between fluvial and adjacent small lacustrine habitats, but avoided a larger pond inhabited by large piscivorous fishes. Instream movement rates in mid‐winter were lower than in early winter and occurred primarily during hours of darkness (dawn, dusk and night). Fluvial habitats were relatively stable and ice‐free throughout the study periods. These results suggested that large Atlantic salmon parr utilize a variety of habitats and remain active throughout the winter, even under stable environmental conditions.

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 score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207