MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032624732 · doi:10.1577/m08-034.1

Recovery Potential Assessment for Lake Sturgeon in Canadian Designatable Units

2009· article· en· W2032624732 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luis A. Vélez‐Espino, Marten A. Koops

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLake sturgeonAcipenserSturgeonJuvenileAbundance (ecology)FisheryPopulationHarmRange (aeronautics)Environmental scienceEcologyBiologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Significant declines in the abundance of lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens across most of its North American range have led to abundances less than 10% of estimated minimum sustainable population sizes and, in some locations, less than 1% of historic abundances. These precipitous declines in abundance have resulted in most lake sturgeon populations being considered a conservation concern and have prompted management actions toward recovery. Here we present modeling in support of a recovery potential assessment, using stage-structured matrix models and population viability analysis to quantitatively assess allowable harm, recovery efforts, probabilities of recovery, and recovery time frames. From this assessment, we conclude that lake sturgeon populations are most sensitive to harm on adult survival and that some designatable units are highly sensitive to any level of harm. However, the scope for recovering lake sturgeon by improving adult survival is limited; instead, larger proportional increases in population growth rates can be achieved by focusing recovery efforts on age-0 and juvenile survival. Finally, based on a recovery target of 1,188 spawning females/year for each discrete population and current abundances from 1% to 10% of this target, long-term projections indicate recovery time frames ranging from 20 to over 100 years, depending on the recovery actions implemented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207