MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160742970 · doi:10.1577/m04-180.1

Spawning Demographics and Juvenile Dispersal of an Adfluvial Bull Trout Population in Trestle Creek, Idaho

2006· article· en· W2160742970 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher C. Downs, Dona L. Horan, Erin Morgan‐Harris, Robert Jakubowski

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAGE-WELLIdaho Department of Fish and GameIdaho State University
KeywordsJuvenileTroutFisheryTributaryOtolithBiological dispersalSpring (device)GeographyPopulationBiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We utilized a screw trap, trap-box weir, remote passive integrated transponder tag (PIT) detection weir, and otolith microchemistry to evaluate (2000–2004) spawning demographics and migration patterns of adfluvial bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Trestle Creek, Idaho, a tributary to Lake Pend Oreille. Annual repeat spawning was more common than alternate-year spawning. Annual growth, estimated from adult bull trout PIT-tagged in 2000 and recaptured in 2001, averaged 28 mm. Peak diel movement of adult bull trout occurred after sunset. Emigration of juveniles occurred in two pulses, one in spring that was associated with snowmelt runoff and increasing water temperatures and a second in fall as stream temperatures dropped and fall rains began. Juvenile bull trout moved a mean rate of 455 m per night in 2001 and 423 m per night in 2002. Each year we trapped large numbers of age-0 bull trout that appeared to be emigrating with high spring flows. Based on otolith microchemistry, most of the 47 adults in the sample had emigrated at age 3 or age 4, and none had emigrated at age 0. This suggests that age-0 emigrants are not making a significant contribution to adult returns.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations71
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207