A Study of Darter (Percidae) Assemblages in Several Tributaries of the Ottawa River, Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the habitat preference (or use), distribution and growth of darters (Channel Darter Percina copelandi, Logperch Percina caprodes, Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare, Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi and Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum) in tributaries of the Ottawa River, Québec, Canada. The Channel Darter’s habitat can be characterised by coarse heterogeneous substrate with water velocities greater than 0.25 m/s in zones with low bank slopes. Its distribution is limited to five tributaries of the Ottawa River, downstream from the first physical barrier. The Logperch and Fantail Darter’s habitats were similar to that of the Channel Darter, although the Fantail Darter was present in shallower waters. The Tessellated Darter was spatially partitioned from the others; the species seems to be a habitat generalist. The Johnny Darter was the least abundant darter and seems to prefer coarse heterogeneous substrate. The majority of growth in length was attained during the first year in all species. Growth rates were affected by the presence of parasites in the Channel Darter and Fantail Darter, non-parasitized individuals growing faster than parasitized individuals. Growth rates also differed among males and females in the Channel Darter, males growing faster than females.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".