MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021023700 · doi:10.1139/f03-012

Patterns and correlates of movement and site fidelity in individually tagged young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)

2003· article· en· W2021023700 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Stefán Ó. Steingrímsson, James W. A. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsSalmoFisheryPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyCompetition (biology)HabitatEcologyEnvironmental scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on stream fish movement offers diverse views on the patterns (restricted vs. nonrestricted), causes (competition vs. habitat use), and consequences (mobile fish of lower vs. equal fitness) of movement. We tagged 320 young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (30.1–55.3 mm), using relatively noninvasive tagging (elastomers) and recovery (snorkeling) techniques, to test these alternative views. Most fish (mean = 63.8%) stayed in the study sites (10–120 m) throughout their respective study season (28–74 days). Of the resighted fish, 61.8% moved less than 1 m up- or down-stream and only three fish moved more than 10 m, causing extremely leptokurtic movement curves. Movement and site fidelity were weakly affected by habitat use and competition. Fish originally found in slow water moved farther than fish from fast water, whereas fish found at high population densities were more likely to disappear than fish from low densities. Finally, mobile fish grew as fast or faster than more sedentary fish, supporting the idea that movement can be advantageous and is not just a by-product of density-dependent population regulation.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations82
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207