Homing behaviour of stream‐dwelling brook charr following experimental displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precise homing of 24 brook charr Salvelinus fontinalis (157–215 mm LF), displaced from their site of capture in a natural stream, was rare both in fish displaced upstream and those displaced downstream. Most fish settled in preferred habitats (pool or glide) away from their home site and showed restricted movement up to the pre‐spawning period. Partial return responses, however, were stronger in fish displaced downstream than in fish displaced upstream. Most fish displaced downstream showed directional upstream movement soon after displacement, whereas fish displaced upstream did not show directional upstream movement, suggesting that it is primarily olfactory cues from upstream locations, and not positive rheotaxis, which mediate the return response. Homing success was unrelated to distance of displacement, body size, or population density in the home site, but daily mobility increased with body size for fish displaced downstream. There was no evidence of switching between specific areas between night and day, nor of differences between daytime and night‐time mobility, suggesting that diel movement cycles did not bias the evaluation of homing success. Site attachment in stream‐dwelling brook charr may be characterized as persistent (undisturbed fish remain stationary over long periods), but readily disrupted by involuntary displacement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".