Biological traits of eastern sand darter (<i>Ammocrypta pellucida</i>) in the lower Thames River, Canada, with comparisons to a more southern population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida)is listed as Threatened under the CanadianSpecies at Risk Act. Little relevant biological information is available for most Canadian populations and only limited information is available for populations in the United States. To supplement the paucity of information, this study collected biological information on eastern sand darter during field surveys in 2006–2007 from 10 sites in the lower Thames River, Ontario, Canada. Collected data were used to estimate critical life history traits including: longevity, fecundity, clutch size and number, growth, survival, age‐at‐first‐maturity and cohort age structure. Longevity was 3+ years, with age‐at‐first‐maturity being 1+ for both sexes. Examination of egg sizes from preserved females in 2007 showed a bimodal distribution, suggesting two spawning occurrences of 71 eggs each. Quantitative comparison of lower Thames River biological information with a more southerly eastern sand darter population in the Little Muskingum River, Ohio, demonstrated little variation between the populations. Data comparisons suggest that localised environmental factors are affecting biological traits (growth), in particular water temperature that may be controlled by differences in riparian cover and/or groundwater input.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".