Dual‐gear approach for calibrating electric fishing capture efficiency and abundance estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electric fishing depletion systematically underestimates fish abundance in streams. Electric fishing mark‐recapture estimates are unbiased, but only when performed over several days to allow marked fish to recover from electric fishing. A mark‐recapture procedure that can be performed in 1 day and produces unbiased population estimates is described. It involves minnow trapping, marking and releasing juvenile salmonids in a stop‐netted reach, followed by electric fishing the reach 1 h after release of marked fish. Recapture of marked fish during electric fishing can form the basis of a dual‐gear mark‐recapture population estimate, or an unbiased estimate of electric fishing capture efficiency. The marking technique did not affect short‐term catchability of the target species (P = 0.823), and provided unbiased estimates of capture efficiency (0.38–0.40) that were similar to those documented by other researchers. However, local validation to confirm equal catchability of marked and unmarked fish, as described in this study, is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".