MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160614336 · doi:10.1002/rra.1565

PERFORMANCE OF FISH PASSAGE STRUCTURES AT UPSTREAM BARRIERS TO MIGRATION

2011· article· en· W2160614336 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher M. Bunt, Theodore Castro‐Santos, Àlex Haro

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsAttractionWeirRange (aeronautics)Fish migrationFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceFisheryBiologyGeographyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Attraction and passage efficiency were reviewed and compared from 19 monitoring studies that produced data for evaluations of pool‐and‐weir, Denil, vertical‐slot and nature‐like fishways. Data from 26 species of anadromous and potamodromous fishes from six countries were separated by year and taxonomic family into a matrix with 101 records. Attraction performance was highly variable for the following fishway structures: pool‐and‐weir (attraction range = 29–100%, mean = 77%, median = 81%), vertical‐slot (attraction range = 0–100%, mean = 63%, median = 80%), Denil (attraction range = 21–100%, mean = 61%, median = 57%) and nature‐like (attraction range = 0–100%, mean = 48%, median = 50%). Mean passage efficiency was inversely related to mean attraction efficiency by fishway structure type, with the highest passage for nature‐like fishways (range = 0–100%, mean = 70%, median = 86%), followed by Denil (range = 0–97%, mean = 51%, median = 38%), vertical‐slot (range = 0–100%, mean = 45%, median = 43%) and pool‐and‐weir (range = 0–100%, mean = 40%, median = 34%). Principal components analysis and logistic regression modelling indicated that variation in fish attraction was driven by biological characteristics of the fish that were studied, whereas variation in fish passage was related to fishway type, slope and elevation change. This meta‐analysis revealed that the species of fish monitored and structural design of the fishways have strong implications for both attraction and passage performance, and in most cases, existing data are not sufficient to support design recommendations. Many more fishway evaluations are needed over a range of species, fishway types and configurations to characterize, to optimize and to design new fishways. Furthermore, these studies must be performed in a consistent manner to identify the relative contributions of fish attraction and passage to overall fishway performance at each site. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley &amp; 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations439
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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