A Roadmap for Coasters: Landscapes, Life Histories, and the Conservation of Brook Trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is still much to do in developing informed policy on the issue of migratory (“coaster”) brook troutSalvelinus fontinalis. My purpose in this paper is to provide a summary of research from other programs that may be useful for understanding the dichotomy between coaster and stream‐resident brook trout. Great Lakes glacial history, population structure at the watershed level, landscape‐scale habitat patterns, the energetics of resident and migratory brook trout, and dichotomous movements of young of year all provide important context for coaster brook trout. I apply a new growth model to literature sources on brook trout life history to scope the potential range of coaster‐resident life histories. The results indicate that juvenile growth falls largely into two groups, depending on whether the adult prey field incorporates fish in the diet. Combining ideas on variation in the standard metabolic rate and habitat productivity with a new theory of food web structure from other authors leads to an interesting working hypothesis for coaster brook trout that builds on W. E. Ricker's original observations on brook trout diet over 75 years ago.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.001 |
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".