MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2156516118 · doi:10.1139/f04-177

Effects of riparian canopy opening and salmon carcass addition on the abundance and growth of resident salmonids

2005· article· en· W2156516118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret A. Wilzbach, Bret C. Harvey, Jason L. White, Rodney J. Nakamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyRiparian zoneOncorhynchusSTREAMSRainbow troutBiomass (ecology)TroutFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcologyAbundance (ecology)BiologyTree canopyFish <Actinopterygii>Habitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the concurrent effects of riparian canopy opening and salmon carcass addition on salmonid biomass, density and growth rates in small streams over 2 years. In each of six streams in the Smith and Klamath River basins in northern California, red alder (Alnus rubra) and other hardwoods were removed along both banks of a 100-m reach to increase incident radiation. A second 100-m reach, with an intact canopy, was established in each stream as a light control. Salmon carcasses were added each year to both cut and uncut riparian sections in three of the six streams. Differences in total density and biomass of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from pretreatment levels responded positively to canopy removal but were not detectably affected by carcass addition. Differences in specific growth rates of the fish between open and closed canopy reaches were greater in sites without carcasses than in sites with carcasses. In light-limited settings where temperature gains associated with canopy opening are not problematic for aquatic resources, gains in salmonid production might be achieved by selective trimming of riparian hardwoods.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations76
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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