MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preliminary study on the application of radio-telemetry techniques to evaluate movements of fish in the Lateral canal at Itaipu Dam, Brazil

2007· article· en· W2161735032 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lisiane Hahn, Karl K. English, Joachim Carosfeld, Luiz G. M. Silva, João Dirço Latini, Ângelo Antônio Agostinho, Domingo Rodriguez Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueNeotropical Ichthyology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsTelemetryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryChannel (broadcasting)EcologyZoologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preliminary study on the application of radio-telemetry techniques to describe the movements of fish in a bypass channel at Itaipu Dam (Paraná River), known as "Canal da Piracema," was carried out between January and February of 2004. Fourteen individuals of six species (Prochilodus lineatus, Leporinus friderici, Schizodon borellii, Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum, Pterodoras granulosus and Cichla kelberi) were intragastrically and surgically radiotagged and monitored by three experimental fixed radio-telemetry stations installed in the upper portion of the Canal. The surgical implantation of transmitters and the anesthesia using clove oil proved to be more efficient and allowed easier handling in comparison to intragastric implantation and electronarcosis immobilization. The use of fixed stations to obtain data was found to be very suitable for tracking movements of several different fish species in the Itaipu lateral channel. Three species (P. granulosus, S. borellii and C. kelberi) moved downstream after release. Two individuals of P. fasciatum and two of P. lineatus migrated upstream, leaving the channel 7 and 10 days and 2 and 24 days after release, respectively. Leporinus friderici was the only species that did not leave the release site until the end of the study period.

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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeotropical IchthyologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207