MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114036124 · doi:10.1139/f02-151

Energetic costs of migration through the Fraser River Canyon, British Columbia, in adult pink (<i>Oncorhynchus gorbuscha</i>) and sockeye (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>) salmon as assessed by EMG telemetry

2002· article· en· W2114036124 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Emily M. Standen, Scott G. Hinch, M. C. Healey, Anthony P. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusEnergeticsCanyonChinook windFisheryEcologyEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) depend on energy reserves to complete their upriver spawning migration. Little is known about how flow patterns and bank characteristics affect energetics or how species differ in reach-specific energy use. In 1999, electromyogram (EMG) radiotelemetry was used to describe activity levels and estimate energy use of 12 adult pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) during their upstream migration in a 7-km section of the Fraser River Canyon. Data collected previously on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the same study area provided a species comparison. We could not identify any strong differences in energetics between species. Although sex had some influence, reach characteristics were the primary factors affecting migration activity and energetics. Fish increased their activity levels when they migrated through reaches constricted by islands or gravel bars compared with nonconstricted reaches. The former contained higher velocity currents and more complex hydraulic conditions than the latter. Two behavioural responses, with similar energetic consequences, occurred in constricted reaches. Either fish swam slowly and took more time, presumably searching for lower velocity areas for migration thus increasing passage time, or they swam quickly through higher velocity flow fields.

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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations110
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207