MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2117699333 · doi:10.1139/f04-035

Influence of river speed on path selection by migrating adult sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>)

2004· article· en· W2117699333 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Emily M. Standen, Scott G. Hinch, Peter S. Rand

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBC Hydro
KeywordsOncorhynchusCurrent (fluid)FlumeEnvironmental scienceFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Hydrology (agriculture)OceanographyGeologyBiologyPhysicsFlow (mathematics)MechanicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We applied stereovideographic techniques to investigate path selection, ground speed, and swimming speed in adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) ascending the Seton River, British Columbia. We tracked three-dimensional trajectories of salmon through 10 reaches and characterized the current profile at each site. At sites with relatively slow currents, the encountered river current speeds along the fish's trajectory were significantly lower than the mean current speed of the site. However, at higher current speed sites, fish experienced current speeds at or above the average current speed of the site and increased their ground speed through these sites. Observed in situ swimming speeds were 1.4–76.0 times greater than swimming speeds expected based on tailbeat frequency – swimming speed predictive relationships established in flume studies. We conclude that (i) at sites with relatively slow or moderate current speeds, fish minimize exposure to high-speed currents to minimize energy expenditure, (ii) at sites with high-speed currents, fish may change their migration strategy, minimizing time spent searching for low current speed pathways and increasing their ground speed to expedite passage, and (iii) laboratory-derived predictive equations may only be appropriate for predicting in situ swimming costs at sites with moderate and linearly flowing currents.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations65
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→