MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007289660 · doi:10.1139/f05-014

Risk analysis for species introductions: forecasting population growth of Eurasian ruffe (<i>Gymnocephalus cernuus</i>)

2005· article· en· W2007289660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Notre DameU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsAllee effectPopulationBiologyEcologyPopulation growthFisheryGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American distribution of the Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), an ecologically important and costly invasive fish, is presently limited to the Laurentian Great Lakes. Risk analyses for accidental introductions of ruffe to inland lakes should focus on the chance of establishment for small introductions such as those that would result from transporting ruffe as bait. Here I use Akaike's Information Criterion to select a population growth model for ruffe based on observed population dynamics during the invasion of Loch Lomond, Scotland. This population is regulated by a high carrying capacity and Allee effects were undetected. Parameter estimates obtained from this population forecast that the chance of establishment for possible introductions of ruffe to inland lakes in North America is high. A model for ruffe winter survival suggests that survivorship between introductions and spawning may be an important determinant of establishment success, but that the chance of establishment is high for introductions of only a few individuals. To prevent invasions of ruffe in inland waters, release of ruffe, whether intentional or accidental, should not be tolerated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→