MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071314100 · doi:10.1139/f03-031

Brook trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>) response to wood removal from high-gradient streams of the Adirondack Mountains (N.Y., U.S.A.)

2003· article· en· W2071314100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dana R. Warren, Clifford E. Kraft

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
KeywordsFontinalisSalvelinusTroutSTREAMSLarge woody debrisDebrisEnvironmental scienceAbundance (ecology)WatershedHydrology (agriculture)EcologyRelative species abundanceStream restorationHabitatFisheryBiologyGeologyRiparian zoneOceanographyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A before–after, control–impact study was conducted to evaluate brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) response to the removal of debris dams and woody debris from an ice-storm-impacted stream system in the eastern Adirondack Mountains in New York State. A total of 10 reach pairs were established on two first-order streams, two second-order streams, and one third-order stream, all within the same watershed. Analyses, conducted separately for each stream order, used linear contrasts to compare differences in trout abundance between reference (upstream) and removal (downstream) reaches 1 month and 1 year after the manipulation. We expected trout abundance to decrease in removal reaches relative to reference reaches; however, responses varied temporally and with respect to stream order. Trout abundance had not changed significantly 1 month after removal. One year after removal, relative trout abundance had increased in the third-order stream, decreased in the second-order streams, and exhibited no significant change in the first-order streams. In areas with abundant boulders and preexisting habitat complexity, accumulated woody debris may have limited influence on trout abundance.

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)0.001
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207