Habitat factors affecting the abundance and distribution of juvenile cutthroat trout (<i>Oncorhynchus clarki</i>) and coho salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution, abundance, and habitat associations of juvenile anadromous coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) were evaluated using survey data from 119 sites in coastal British Columbia. Both cutthroat and coho occurred at their highest densities in very small streams (<5 m channel width), and bankfull channel width was the single best predictor of cutthroat presence (p = 0.0001) and density (R 2 = 0.55). Within a channel, densities of coho and larger (yearling and older) cutthroat parr were highest in pools, while densities of young-of-the-year cutthroat were significantly lower in pools and highest in shallower habitats. Abundance of larger cutthroat parr and pool habitat were positively correlated with large woody debris (LWD) within a subset of intermediate-gradient gravel-cobble streams, where pools appear to be limiting to larger cutthroat parr abundance. More than 50% of pools were formed by scour associated with LWD in streams ranging from 1.2 to 11 m channel width, and pools formed by LWD scour were on average 10% deeper than pools formed by other mechanisms. Disproportionate use of small streams by cutthroat indicates that protection of small stream habitat is important for long-term conservation of sea-run populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it