MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2074783386 · doi:10.1139/f09-016

Predicting site-specific overwintering of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta) using a habitat suitability index

2009· article· en· W2074783386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Palm, Eva Brännäs, Kjell Nilsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoOverwinteringBrown troutJuvenileHabitatFisheryTroutEcologyHome rangeEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) site-specific overwintering was studied in an ice-covered stream in northern Sweden. We monitored 238 individually tagged juvenile trout (body length 120–204 mm) from late summer until late winter using portable passive integrated transponder tag equipment and related it to a habitat suitability index. Minimum habitat suitability index explained a large portion (66.8%) of the variation in the proportion of individuals that remained and overwintered at specific sites from late summer until late winter. Our study design detected three scales of overwinter movements: (i) individuals that remained within their tagging site (site-scale movements); (ii) individuals that moved to other reaches (reach-scale movements), which were probably the most common; and (iii) individuals that left the study stream (stream-scale movements). There were no differences in size at tagging among individuals that adopted different scales of movements. We suggest that habitat suitability index can be used as a tool to predict site specific residency and, thus, habitat conditions in stream reaches during winter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→