MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118238742 · doi:10.1111/eff.12216

Movement patterns of Brook Trout in a restored coastal stream system in southern Massachusetts

2015· article· en· W2118238742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin L. Snook, Benjamin H. Letcher, Todd L. Dubreuil, Joseph Zydlewski, Matthew J. O’Donnell, Andrew R. Whiteley, Stephen T. Hurley, Andy J. Danylchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Of Freshwater Fish · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsSalvelinusTroutFontinalisBayEstuaryFish migrationHabitatPopulationEcologyFisheryOceanographyGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coastal Brook Trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) populations are found from northern Canada to New England. The extent of anadromy generally decreases with latitude, but the ecology and movements of more southern populations are poorly understood. We conducted a 33‐month acoustic telemetry study of Brook Trout in Red Brook, MA , and adjacent Buttermilk Bay (marine system) using 16 fixed acoustic receivers and surgically implanting acoustic transmitters in 84 individuals. Tagged Brook Trout used the stream, estuary (50% of individuals) and bay (10% of individuals). Movements into full sea water were brief when occurring. GAMM models revealed that transitions between habitat areas occurred most often in spring and fall. Environmental data suggest that use of the saline environment is limited by summer temperatures in the bay. Movements may also be related to moon phase. Compared to more northern coastal populations of Brook Trout, the Red Brook population appears to be less anadromous overall, yet the estuarine segment of the system may have considerable ecological importance as a food resource.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology Of Freshwater FishSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207