MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial and quantitative patterns of movement in large bull trout (<i>Salvelinus confluentus</i>) from a watershed in north‐western British Columbia, Canada, are due to habitat selection and not differences in life history

2004· article· en· W2133195801 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michele Bahr, J. Mark Shrimpton

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Of Freshwater Fish · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsTroutTributaryHabitatWatershedFisheryGeographyEcologyElectrofishingSpawn (biology)BiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract – Movement and habitat use by bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was examined using radio telemetry in the Morice River watershed, north‐western British Columbia, between April 2000 and November 2001. Bull trout principally utilised mainstem habitat. Throughout the watershed, little movement was observed during the winter months. From June to September, movement increased and was correlated with migration into tributaries. We directly observed spawning bull trout only in tributaries of the Morice River and never in the mainstem. Many of the fish (N = 48) migrated to the nearest potential spawning sites, but a few fish (N = 7) made extensive migrations to other regions of the watershed to spawn. Fish that spawned in both years of the study returned to the same spawning location. Variation in spatial and movement data, therefore, appears to be linked to availability of suitable habitat and not differences in life history that have been observed in large bull trout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology Of Freshwater FishSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207