MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133484666 · doi:10.1002/rra.723

The effect of wood and temperature on juvenile coho salmon winter movement, growth, density and survival in side‐channels

2003· article· en· W2133484666 on OpenAlexaff
Guillermo Giannico, Scott G. Hinch

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileChannel (broadcasting)Spring (device)Environmental scienceFisheryHydrology (agriculture)Fish <Actinopterygii>EcologyGeologyBiologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In British Columbia, side‐channels have been built to compensate for lost salmonid habitat. Most are structurally simple with little in‐stream wood; however, they support high densities of juvenile coho salmon. We longitudinally divided in halves the top 100 m of two dead‐end artificial side‐channels, one side‐channel with low winter water temperatures (surface‐fed) and one with relatively higher water temperatures (groundwater‐fed), closed the downstream end of each side‐channel with two‐way traps, and treated only one half of each channel with bundles of wood. Trapped fish were marked daily and coho salmon movement, growth and smolt output were monitored for two years. Wood addition increased juvenile coho winter carrying capacity and spring smolt output only in the ‘colder’ surface‐fed side‐channel. In contrast, in the groundwater‐fed side‐channel, with relatively higher water temperatures, the wood treatment slightly reduced the channel's carrying capacity and the spring output of coho salmon smolts. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiver Research and ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207