MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029683054 · doi:10.1577/t03-213.1

Effects of Turbidity, Light Level, and Cover on Predation of White Sturgeon Larvae by Prickly Sculpins

2005· article· en· W2029683054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dena M. Gadomski, Michael J. Parsley

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBonneville Power AdministrationU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsPredationSturgeonSculpinBiologyLarvaPredatorTurbidityWhite (mutation)FisheryEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus occur in rivers of the western United States and southwestern Canada, but some populations are in decline because of recruitment failure. Many river systems in this area have been altered as a result of development that has caused major environmental changes. Our goal was to examine how three changes—lower turbidity levels, higher light levels, and altered substrates—might affect predation by prickly sculpin Cottus asper on white sturgeon larvae. We experimentally investigated predation at various turbidity levels and found that significantly more white sturgeon yolk sac larvae were eaten at lower turbidity levels. The effects of light level (1–4 and 7–15 lx), the presence or absence of rocks as cover, and prey size (14–17 mm and 20–24 mm total length) on the outcome of predator–prey interactions were also examined. Significantly fewer white sturgeon were eaten during trials that combined the lowest light level, cover, and the smallest larvae. Our results suggest that altered river conditions caused by impoundment and other factors have increased predation on white sturgeon larvae.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207