MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2133517965 · doi:10.1139/f05-250

Factors influencing summer movement patterns of Bonneville cutthroat trout (<i>Oncorhynchus clarkii utah</i>)

2006· article· en· W2133517965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy J. Schrank, Frank J. Rahel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Wyoming
KeywordsTroutFish measurementOncorhynchusRainbow troutFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceAnimal scienceRange (aeronautics)TurnoverMovement (music)BiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used multiple approaches to study summer movement patterns of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) in the Thomas Fork drainage of western Wyoming, USA. Our objectives were to (i) document summer movement patterns of cutthroat trout, especially as related to the concepts of local turnover and displacement distances, (ii) determine if fish size and condition were related to mobility, and (iii) compare summer movement patterns between years. Large fish (270–384 mm total length) monitored by radiotelemetry showed little movement during the summer as evidenced by a maximum displacement distance of <300 m and a low turnover rate among locations (0.21). For a broad size range of fish marked with visual implant tags (173–390 mm total length) in three study reaches, displacement distances were again low but turnover rate was high (>0.50 in most study reaches). This high turnover rate seemed to be driven mainly by movement among smaller fish as mobility declined with increasing fish size. Mobility also declined with decreasing body condition. Turnover rate in study reaches was higher during the summer of 1999 when stream flows were higher and water temperatures were cooler compared with the summer of 2000.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→