MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083549705 · doi:10.1139/f08-189

Movements of mottled sculpins (Cottus bairdii) in a Michigan stream: how restricted are they?

2009· article· en· W2083549705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew J. Breen, Carl R. Ruetz, Kurt J. Thompson, Steven L. Kohler

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We monitored 94 mottled sculpins ( Cottus bairdii ) marked with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags to examine seasonal movement patterns. High detection efficiency (mean ± standard error = 0.76 ± 0.03) of PIT-tagged fish was obtained with a portable antenna. Nighttime searches were more effective than daytime relocations in summer, and smaller fish (<65 mm) were detected more readily than larger fish (≥65 mm). Sculpins used erosional habitats more than depositional habitats, particularly during summer and nighttime. Search attempts within a 150 m reach showed that displacement, mean movement distance, and home range did not differ significantly between summer and winter, suggesting that season did not strongly influence movement. Additionally, movement metrics were unrelated to sculpin size. However, supplementary searches of a larger reach (700 m) showed that 16% of PIT-tagged fish moved more than 100 m over 1 year, with a maximum displacement of 511 m, and mobile fish typically displayed upstream bias. Although most mottled sculpins in our system were relatively sedentary, a small proportion of individuals moved further than previously reported for other systems.

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)0.000
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations94
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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