Evaluation of single‐pass backpack electric fishing for stream fish community monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data from Lake Ontario tributaries were used to evaluate the efficacy of single‐pass backpack electric fishing for stream fish monitoring by: testing the relationship between single‐pass catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) and multiple‐pass‐based population estimates; comparing species richness estimates derived from single‐pass and multiple‐pass data and assessing the concordance of fish assemblage patterns described using single‐pass and multiple‐pass data. Significant correlations were calculated between single‐pass CPUE and removal‐based population estimates for total catch, 15 species, six taxonomic families, five feeding and four reproductive guilds and tolerant/intolerant species. Strong correlations were more commonly associated with the abundance of individual species than other metrics. Capture probability was not affected by stream size or habitat complexity for most measures. Species accumulation curves and significant correlations ( r 2 = 0.9) between single‐pass and multiple‐pass electric fishing indicate that single‐pass surveys provide a representative index of species diversity. In addition, within and among‐site variation in fish community composition based on single‐pass and multiple‐pass data were similar.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".