MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057355165 · doi:10.1139/f06-056

The Shiraz model: a tool for incorporating anthropogenic effects and fish–habitat relationships in conservation planning

2006· article· en· W2057355165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark D. Scheuerell, Ray Hilborn, Mary Ruckelshaus, Krista K. Bartz, Kerry M. Lagueux, Andrew D. Haas, Kit Rawson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthwest Fisheries Science CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsOncorhynchusHabitatThreatened speciesHatcheryPopulationProductivityFisheryChinook windGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current efforts to conserve Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) rely on a variety of information sources, including empirical observations, expert opinion, and models. Here we outline a framework for incorporating detailed information on density-dependent population growth, habitat attributes, hatchery operations, and harvest management into conservation planning in a time-varying, spatially explicit manner. We rely on a multistage Beverton–Holt model to describe the production of salmon from one life stage to the next. We use information from the literature to construct relationships between the physical environment and the necessary productivity and capacity parameters for the model. As an example of how policy makers can use the model in recovery planning, we applied the model to a threatened population of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Snohomish River basin in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. By incorporating additional data on hatchery operations and harvest management for Snohomish River basin stocks, we show how proposed actions to improve physical habitat throughout the basin translate into projected improvements in four important population attributes: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and life-history diversity. We also describe how to adapt the model to a variety of other management applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations120
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207