MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089712999 · doi:10.1139/z09-004

Transportation of Pacific salmon carcasses from streams to riparian forests by bears

2009· article· en· W2089712999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas P. Quinn, Stephanie M. Carlson, Scott M. Gende, Harry B. Rich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusSTREAMSRiparian zonePredationFisheryBiologyEcosystemNutrientUrsusEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>HabitatPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation on Pacific salmon by bears (genus Ursus L., 1758) can be an important ecosystem process because the spatial distribution of carcasses largely determines whether marine-derived nutrients cycle through aquatic or terrestrial pathways. Direct observations on three streams in southeastern Alaska indicated that 49% of the pink ( Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum, 1792)) and chum ( Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum in Artedi, 1792)) salmon killed by bears were carried into the forest. The tendency of bears to transport carcasses was independent of the sex and species of salmon, but unspawned fish were more often transported than fish that had completed spawning. Data on tagged sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum in Artedi, 1792)) in one southwestern Alaska stream indicated that 42.6% of the killed salmon were transported, and that higher percentages were transported in years when salmon densities were greater. At six other streams, on average, 68.1% of the sockeye salmon killed were apparently transported away from the stream into the forest. Combining the data from all sites, the proportion of carcasses transported increased with water depth at the site. These results emphasize the role that bears play in mediating the interactions between nutrients from salmon and the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the variation in carcass distribution among streams and among years.

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 score0.697
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207