MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards the conservation of crucian carp <i>Carassius carassius</i>: understanding the extent and causes of decline within part of its native English range

2011· article· en· W2125868949 on OpenAlexaff
Carl D. Sayer, Gordon H. Copp, Dave Emson, Michael Godard, Grzegorz Zięba, K. J. Wesley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrucian carpCarassiusBiologyEsoxStockingFisheryRange (aeronautics)CyprinidaeHabitatCyprinusPikeCarassius auratusEcologyPredationFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent and causes of crucian carp Carassius carassius decline were assessed during an initial study of c. 25 ponds in north Norfolk, eastern England, U.K., which was then replicated (a validation study) on another c. 25 ponds in an adjacent area. Of these ponds, c. 40 are known to have contained C. carassius during the 1970s-1980s. In the initial and validation studies, C. carassius were found in only 11 of these ponds, yielding declines of 76% (five of 21 ponds) and 68% (six of 19 ponds), respectively (72% decline overall). Non-native cyprinids, including goldfish Carassius auratus and common carp Cyprinus carpio and their hybrids with C. carassius, were observed in 20% of the ponds. Causes of C. carassius local extinction from 21 ponds were confidently determined as desiccation due to drought, terrestrialization and habitat deterioration, hybridization and competition with non-native cyprinids, agricultural land reclamation and predation (after the introduction of pike Esox lucius). This study led to C. carassius being designated as a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species in the county of Norfolk, the first formal conservation designation for the species in the U.K. The C. carassius BAP plan aims to halt the decline of this much overlooked species through reintroductions and selective stocking of suitable ponds within the native range of the species.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations68
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207