MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160653631 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0110

Modeling freshwater mussel distribution in relation to biotic and abiotic habitat variables at multiple spatial scales

2014· article· en· W2160653631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ericka E. Hegeman, Scott W. Miller, Karen E. Mock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBonneville Power AdministrationNatural Resources Conservation ServiceUtah State University
KeywordsHabitatEcologyRiver ecosystemAbiotic componentMargaritiferaMusselEnvironmental scienceChannel (broadcasting)GeographyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The habitat requirements of many native freshwater mussels remain unclear despite their imperiled status and ecological importance. To explore scale-specific habitat associations in the three genera of mussels found in the western United States (Anodonta, Gonidea, and Margaritifera) we used a multiscale random forest modeling approach to assess functional habitat parameters throughout a 55 km segment of the upper Middle Fork John Day River in northeastern Oregon. We characterized mussel occurrence and density with respect to the hierarchical, hydrogeomorphic structure by sampling reaches of varying valley confinement and channel units nested within individual reaches. Each genus exhibited unique longitudinal trends and channel unit-use patterns. In particular, the large-scale longitudinal trends in Margaritifera occurrence were associated with hydrogeomorphic characteristics at the reach and channel unit scale, with Margaritifera densities peaking in narrow valley segments and in riffles and runs. At the scale of the channel unit, all mussel genera responded to variation in physical habitat characteristics, particularly those that indicated more stable parts of the channel. Our results suggest that spatial patterns in freshwater mussels are associated with the hierarchical structuring of the lotic ecosystem and may provide guidance to restoration efforts.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207