MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153350068 · doi:10.1111/rec.12159

A scientific basis for restoring fish spawning habitat in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers of the Laurentian Great Lakes

2014· article· en· W2153350068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyEnvironmental Protection Agency
KeywordsHabitatFisheryRestoration ecologyDam removalFish migrationHabitat destructionAdaptive managementGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>Fish habitatEcologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of functional habitat in riverine systems is a global fisheries issue. Few studies, however, describe the decision‐making approach taken to abate loss of fish spawning habitat. Numerous habitat restoration efforts are underway and documentation of successful restoration techniques for spawning habitat of desirable fish species in large rivers connecting the Laurentian Great Lakes are reported here. In 2003, to compensate for the loss of fish spawning habitat in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers that connect the Great Lakes Huron and Erie, an international partnership of state, federal, and academic scientists began restoring fish spawning habitat in both of these rivers. Using an adaptive management approach, we created 1,100 m 2 of productive fish spawning habitat near Belle Isle in the Detroit River in 2004; 3,300 m 2 of fish spawning habitat near Fighting Island in the Detroit River in 2008; and 4,000 m 2 of fish spawning habitat in the Middle Channel of the St. Clair River in 2012. Here, we describe the adaptive‐feedback management approach that we used to guide our decision making during all phases of spawning habitat restoration, including problem identification, team building, hypothesis development, strategy development, prioritization of physical and biological imperatives, project implementation, habitat construction, monitoring of fish use of the constructed spawning habitats, and communication of research results. Numerous scientific and economic lessons learned from 10 years of planning, building, and assessing fish use of these three fish spawning habitat restoration projects are summarized in this article.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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