MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162554680 · doi:10.1139/f03-091

The influence of hatchery coho salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>) on the productivity of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon coastal basins

2003· article· en· W2162554680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas E. Nickelson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusHatcheryFisheryProductivityPredationJuvenileFish hatcheryPopulationChinook windBiologyEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyFish farmingAquaculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To aid in the recovery of depressed wild salmon populations, the operation of hatcheries must be changed to reduce interactions of juvenile hatchery fish with wild fish. Evidence suggests that productivity of wild populations can be reduced by the presence of large numbers of hatchery smolts in lower rivers and estuaries that attract predators. An index of productivity based on the density-independent rate of reproduction of wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 12 Oregon coastal river basins and two lake basins was negatively correlated with the average number of hatchery coho salmon smolts released in each basin. The index of productivity was not significantly correlated with the average proportion of hatchery coho salmon in each naturally spawning population or with habitat quality. Alterations to hatchery programs that could encourage recovery of wild populations include (i) avoiding release of large numbers of smolts in areas with high concentrations of wild fish, (ii) decreasing the number of smolts released, and (iii) using a volitional release strategy or a strategy that employs smaller release groups spread temporally.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations91
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207