MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126014992 · doi:10.1139/a10-004

Seasonal reproductive patterns and recommended sampling times for sentinel fish species used in environmental effects monitoring programs in Canada

2010· article· en· W2126014992 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Timothy J. Barrett, Kelly R. Munkittrick

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGonadosomatic IndexSentinel speciesBiologySampling (signal processing)EcologyReproductive biologyPopulationFisheryFecundityDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s environmental effects monitoring (EEM) program is currently in its fifth cycle of monitoring for the pulp and paper industry and second cycle of monitoring for the metal mining industry. More than 60 different sentinel fish species have been used in the EEM fish population surveys and reproductive impacts have been identified as an issue of concern in the pulp and paper program. A review of the literature was conducted to obtain details of the reproductive biology of each fish species that has been used in EEM studies in Canada. Using available data on seasonal changes in gonadosomatic indices, the seasonal reproductive patterns of Canadian fish species were divided into categories based on reproductive strategy and the timing of initiation of gonadal recrudescence. Recommended sampling times were developed for each reproductive pattern based on periods of temporal stability, minimum variability, and maximum value in gonadosomatic indices within a reproductive cycle. The reproductive strategy, spawning time, spawning temperature, and recommended sampling time were provided for the each sentinel fish species as well as life history characteristics including longevity, age and size at maturity, and mobility. Examination of the fish surveys using small bodied forage species from the EEM pulp and paper program revealed that approximately 72% of these studies were not conducted at the developed recommended sampling times and the magnitude of impacts may be underestimated by failing to sample at the recommended time.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207