MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108476165 · doi:10.1002/rra.2632

EVALUATING STATISTICAL APPROACHES TO QUANTIFYING JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON HABITAT IN A REGULATED CALIFORNIA RIVER

2012· article· en· W2108476165 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Beakes, Jonathan W. Moore, Nicolas A. Retford, Rocko A. Brown, Joseph E. Merz, Susan M. Sogard

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyCalifornia Energy Commission
KeywordsChinook windHabitatAkaike information criterionRange (aeronautics)OccupancyEnvironmental scienceScale (ratio)UnivariateStatistical modelStatisticsFisheryEcologyMultivariate statisticsOncorhynchusGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>MathematicsCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decisions on managed flow releases in regulated rivers should be informed by the best available science. To do this, resource managers require adequate information regarding the tradeoffs between alternative methodologies. In this study, we quantitatively compare two competing multivariate habitat models for juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), a highly valued fish species under serious decline in a large extent of its range. We conducted large-scale snorkel surveys in the American River, California, to obtain a common dataset for model parameterization. We built one habitat model using Akaike Information Criterion analysis and model averaging, ‘model G’, and a second model by using a standard method of aggregating univariate habitat models, ‘model A’. We calculated Cohen's kappa, percent correctly classified, sensitivity, specificity and the area under a receiver operator characteristic to compare the ability of each model to predict juvenile salmon presence and absence. We compared the predicted useable habitat of each model at nine simulated river discharges where usable habitat is equal to the product of a spatial area and the probability of habitat occupancy at that location. Generally, model G maintained greater predictive accuracy with a difference within 10% across the diagnostic statistics. Two key distinctions between models were that model G predicted 17.2% less useable habitat across simulated flows and had 5% fewer false positive classifications than model A. In contrast, model A had a tendency to over predict habitat occupancy and under predict model uncertainty. The largest discrepancy between model predictions occurred at the lowest flows simulated and in the habitats most likely to be occupied by juvenile salmon. This study supports the utility and quantitative framework of Akaike Information Criterion analysis and model averaging in developing habitat models. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiver Research and ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207