MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101071059 · doi:10.1577/m08-249.1

Habitat Choice by Atlantic Salmon Parr in Relation to Turbulence at a Reach Scale

2009· article· en· W2101071059 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eva C. Enders, Mathieu Roy, Michaël Ovidio, Éric Hallot, Claudine Boyer, François Petit, André G. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoHabitatTurbulenceFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcologySubstrate (aquarium)Scale (ratio)Fish <Actinopterygii>PopulationGeographyBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The variables commonly used to describe the physical habitat of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr are average velocity, water depth, and substrate. A variety of micro- and mesohabitat models have been developed using these variables to assess habitat quality. However, Atlantic salmon parr live in highly turbulent streams and rivers in which intense fluctuations of water velocity occur. Laboratory experiments have shown that turbulence affects the behavior and energetics of fish. Nevertheless, habitat use in relation to the strong temporal variability of velocity in natural environments has rarely been studied. In this study, Atlantic salmon parr habitat was examined in relation to turbulence in the Patapédia River, Quebec. Rather than taking the usual approach of surveying a large population at one point in time, we used an intensive radiotelemetry tracking survey that focused on the habitat use of a few individual fish over an extended period. We analyzed habitat use in relation to several dynamic hydraulic variables. Our results revealed that under naturally turbulent conditions, the parr displayed high individual variability in their habitat use. Such heterogeneous use of habitat suggests that individuals are not constrained to a single habitat type. Furthermore, no differences were observed in habitat use among the four daily periods (dawn, day, dusk, and night) for individual parr.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207