Chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) — seabird covariation off central California and possible forecasting applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated covariation between Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) abundance and seabird breeding success in central California, USA, and compared potential forecasts to predictive models based on jack (2-year-old male) returns in the previous year. Stepwise regression models based on seabird breeding success in the previous year were comparable to or stronger than jack-based models. Including seabird breeding success in the current year improved the strength of the relationships. Combined approaches that included seabird and jack data further improved the models in some cases. The relationships based on seabird breeding success remained relatively strong over both shorter (1990–2004) and longer (1976–2004) time periods. Regression models based on multivariate seabird or combined seabird–jack indices were not as strong as stepwise regression models. Our results indicate that there is significant covariation in the responses of salmon and seabirds to variability in ocean conditions and that seabird data may offer an alternate way of forecasting salmon abundance in central California.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".