Understanding low success trapping invasive sea lampreys: an entry-level analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) in the Laurentian Great Lakes are the target of binational control. Trapping of adults could be used for control if trap success was higher. At a hydro-generating station on the St. Marys River, we tested whether the probability of trap entry is low (0.2–0.3) because (i) lampreys spend insufficient time near traps to find and enter the trap, (ii) high discharge at trap sites makes attractant flow from traps difficult to detect or trap openings difficult to reach, and (iii) conspecifics impede trap entry. Discharge at the site was manipulated nightly, and the behaviour of lampreys at trap openings was video-recorded. Odds of a lamprey reaching a trap opening and entering the trap were 3.4 and 1.6 times higher, respectively, with every second spent at a trap. The probability of reaching a trap was not lower on nights when discharge was high or when conspecifics were present at the trap opening. Improved trap entry will require manipulation of stimuli other than discharge that affect the time spent at traps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".