MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of releasing captive reared broodstock into an imperilled wild Atlantic salmon population as a recovery strategy

2004· article· en· W2042534620 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Carr, Frederick G. Whoriskey, Patrick O’Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodstockSpawn (biology)SalmoBiologyHatcheryFisheryCaptivityPopulationHabitatCaptive breedingZoologyAquacultureEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strategy of releasing captive reared adult Atlantic salmon Salmo salar into the Magaguadavic River, New Brunswick, Canada, to spawn, was not an effective tool for rebuilding a seriously depressed wild population. The fish were first generation progeny from wild parents, and had spent their entire lives in captivity in either sea or fresh water. No differences in movement or behaviour patterns were observed between freshwater and seawater reared groups. Fish released in the lower river early (35 to 80 days prior to the natural spawning period) moved into a lake low in the system, and most stayed there near the commercial hatchery where they had been reared from egg to smolt. During the spawning season, none moved to the upper river reaches where most spawning habitat exists. Most broodstock released in the upper river reaches near the time of spawning stayed there during the spawning period. The following year few to no Atlantic salmon fry were found, and most appeared not to be offspring of released adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207