MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2048798170 · doi:10.1139/f04-126

Long-term survival of adult Arctic grayling (<i>Thymallus arcticus</i>) in the Kuparuk River, Alaska

2004· article· en· W2048798170 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen M. Buzby, Linda A. Deegan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGraylingArcticFecundityPopulationVital ratesEcologyBiologyTrophic levelPopulation growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many long-lived species such as Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), population growth rate is most sensitive to changes in adult survival probabilities. Understanding the factors that regulate adult survival in this species should provide insight into the population dynamics of this and other long-lived Arctic species. Using the program MARK, we analyzed 17 years of mark–recapture data to estimate survival rates for Arctic grayling in the Kuparuk River, Alaska, from 1985 to 2000. Mean annual survival rates overall ranged from 0.39 to 1.0 and averaged 0.71 ± 0.05 for resident and 0.75 ± 0.05 for nonresident fish. Spending the summer in the more productive fertilized zone of the experimental reach had no influence on survival despite higher productivity on all trophic levels and consistently higher growth rates in Arctic grayling. None of the environmental (stream temperature, discharge, winter severity, and incidence of drought) or population parameters (growth, condition factor, and mean fish size) that we examined explained significant amounts of variance in survival rates. The lack of responsiveness of survival to annual environmental conditions was unexpected and suggests that multiyear factors or life history tactics that maintain survival at the expense of growth and fecundity likely determine survival.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→