Transferability of habitat suitability criteria of juvenile Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We constructed generalized habitat criteria for juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) based on four river-specific suitability indices for depth, water velocity, and substrate to assess whether habitat criteria for juvenile Atlantic salmon are transferable across rivers. We first tested whether salmon are more likely to occupy higher-quality habitats than generally available in a stream reach based on these composite criteria. We then repeated the same procedure using the river-specific criteria of this study and the generalized habitat suitability criteria of Heggenes. As expected, the river-specific criteria were generally the most effective ones in predicting fish habitat use. However, both of the two generalized criteria also transferred fairly well to the test sites. Viewed across salmon size-classes (<9 cm and >9 cm), the river-specific criteria passed the test in ten of eleven cases (91%), and the two generalized criteria passed in nine (82%) of eleven. Thus, it appears that with respect to summertime habitat criteria for juvenile Atlantic salmon, criteria transference is conceivable at least on a regional scale, and perhaps even on a more "universal" scale.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".