Testing and Refining the Assumptions of Put-and-Take Rainbow Trout Fisheries in Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking catchable-size trout to create sport fisheries is based on a simple conceptual model: stocking more fish creates better fisheries that attract more anglers. Organizations typically stock variable densities of fish (i.e., cost) and expect correlated responses in catch rate and angler effort (i.e., benefit). We tested the assumptions inherent in stocked rainbow trout fisheries in Alberta and found no correlation between these costs and benefits of stocking. Rather, stocking low or high densities of trout created low-density stocks that supported low-catch-rate fisheries, but attracted many anglers if catch rates exceeded 0.08 trout/angler-hr and lakes were close to anglers’ homes. We propose a fiscally responsible model of stocking (i.e., stock minimum numbers of fish to remain above an optimal catch rate at lakes selected to attract anglers) that allows managers to either increase stocking sites or reduce stocking costs while maintaining angler effort.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it