MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062754065 · doi:10.1577/t03-095.1

Impact of Oligotrophication, Temperature, and Water Levels on Walleye Habitat in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario

2004· article· en· W2062754065 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cindy Chu, Charles K. Minns, James E. Moore, Éric Millard

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBayHabitatFisheryEnvironmental sciencePopulationEcologyOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent environmental changes in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, have coincided with a decline in the stocks of walleye Sander vitreus . Suitable habitat supply was estimated in three sections of the bay during the summers of 1972–2001 to assess its role in the decline. An empirical model was developed to predict suitable habitat area for walleyes based on their preferences for cool water and low light intensity. The results indicated that lack of suitable light limits walleye habitat in the bay. Walleye habitat in the shallow upper bay has decreased at the rate of 34 ha/year since the invasion of dreissenid mussels in 1994, while that in the middle and lower bays has remained abundant. Walleye stocks and suitable habitat in the upper bay have both declined since the early 1990s. However, this pattern has not been consistent through time and suggests that other factors have also affected the Bay of Quinte walleye population. The analyses developed here can be used as a tool to enhance the assessment of walleye habitat dynamics in the Bay of Quinte and allow us to examine the impact of oligotrophication on the habitat of an important recreational and commercial species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207