MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kootenai River velocities, depth, and white sturgeon spawning site selection â a mystery unraveled?

2009· article· en· W2161120768 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ichthyology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsSturgeonSpawn (biology)FisheryHabitatPopulationAcipenserHydrology (agriculture)Endangered speciesLake sturgeonEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kootenai River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus population in Idaho, US and British Columbia (BC), Canada became recruitment limited shortly after Libby Dam became fully operational on the Kootenai River, Montana, USA in 1974. In the USA the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act in September of 1994. Kootenai River white sturgeon spawn within an 18-km reach in Idaho, river kilometer (rkm) 228.0–246.0. Each autumn and spring Kootenai River white sturgeon follow a ‘short two-step’ migration from the lower river and Kootenay Lake, BC, to staging reaches downstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Initially, augmented spring flows for white sturgeon spawning were thought to be sufficient to recover the population. Spring discharge mitigation enhanced white sturgeon spawning but a series of research investigations determined that the white sturgeon were spawning over unsuitable incubation and rearing habitat (sand) and that survival of eggs and larvae was negligible. It was not known whether post-Libby Dam management had changed the habitat or if the white sturgeon were not returning to more suitable spawning substrates farther upstream. Fisheries and hydrology researchers made a team effort to determine if the spawning habitat had been changed by Libby Dam operations. Researchers modeled and compared velocities, sediment transport, and bathymetry with post-Libby Dam white sturgeon egg collection locations. Substrate coring studies confirmed cobbles and gravel substrates in most of the spawning locations but that they were buried under a meter or more of post-Libby Dam sediment. Analysis suggested that Kootenai River white sturgeon spawn in areas of highest available velocity and depths over a range of flows. Regardless of the discharge, the locations of accelerating velocities and maximum depth do not change and spawning locations remain consistent. Kootenai River white sturgeon are likely spawning in the same locations as pre-dam, but post-Libby Dam water management has reduced velocities and shear stress, thus sediment is now covering the cobbles and gravels. Although higher discharges will likely provide more suitable spawning and rearing conditions, this would be socially and politically unacceptable because it would bring the river elevation to or in excess of 537.66 m, which is flood stage. Thus, support should be given to habitat modifications incorporated into a management plan to restore suitable habitat and ensure better survival of eggs and larvae.

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)0.000
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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