Increasing experimental approaches in stream trout research – 1987–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – This review of stream trout research literature for the 1987–2006 period covered >1300 papers dealing with 22 relevant topics, when compared with <400 papers on 18 topics in the previous one (1967–1986). The percentage of experimental approaches here quantified for both research reviews was 18% in the 1967–1976 period, increased to 21% in 1977–1986, to 39% in 1987–1996, and up to 43% in 1997–2006. Particular journals in the recent two decadal period published high percentages of experimental papers (The Journal of Animal EcologyandCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; 62.9% and 62.4%, respectively), others, intermediate percentages (Nordic Journal of Fisheries Research,Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,North American Journal of Fisheries ManagementandEcology of Freshwater Fish: 44.1%, 42.4%, 40.5%, and 35.6%, respectively); the remainder covered ≤33%. Research papers on stream ‘trouts’ published over the last two decades were classified into 22 subject areas for nine major journals separately and combined for 55 other journals. Subject areas dealing with the biology and ecology of trout redds, egg development, alevin emergence and onto fry and parr were the most heavily reported in nine major journals, as well as in all other journals combined. Habitat characteristics and cover use by trout were the next. Atlantic salmon and brown trout were the species with highest publication coverage in nearly all subject areas, with low coverage for all salvelinid (charr) species except brook charr. Research on Atlantic salmon in the UK used experimental approaches in nearly 60% of publications and in mid to high 30% for those on Atlantic salmon and brown trout in Scandinavian countries. Consideration is given to future research needs for stream trouts.
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 | 0.033 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".