MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2097364407 · doi:10.1139/f2011-015

Relationships between habitat characteristics and breeding population densities in sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>)

2011· article· en· W2097364407 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Douglas C. Braun, John D. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsOncorhynchusHabitatSTREAMSPredationAbiotic componentAkaike information criterionEcologyPopulationFisheryEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the importance of stream habitat characteristics in governing variation in spawning densities of sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) across 32 streams in the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada. We used mixed-effects models to examine four competing hypotheses for the influence of abiotic stream characteristics acting on either adult salmon or embryo mortality. All models that received support using Akaike’s information criterion included stream characteristics that are associated with cover. These included the percent area of pools, percentage of the banks that were undercut, and large woody debris (in that order). These results suggest the importance of stream characteristics, which reduce risk of predation on adults, in determining spawning sockeye salmon densities. Thus, identification of a small number of physical characteristics of streams provides insight into ecological processes that determine population densities. This information can be used to quantify habitat quality, which can guide habitat prioritization for conservation.

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)0.002
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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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