MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2163372324 · doi:10.1139/f07-085

Geomorphology and stream habitat relationships with smallmouth bass (<i>Micropterus dolomieu</i>) abundance at multiple spatial scales in eastern Oklahoma

2007· article· en· W2163372324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel C. Dauwalter, Dale K. Splinter, William L. Fisher, Richard A. Marston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceOklahoma Department of Wildlife ConservationOklahoma State University
KeywordsMicropterusSTREAMSBass (fish)EcoregionFluvialHabitatCentrarchidaeWatershedDrainage densityEcologyEnvironmental scienceChannel (broadcasting)Spatial variabilityHydrology (agriculture)SalmoRelative species abundanceAbundance (ecology)FisheryBiologyGeologyGeomorphologyDrainageFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluvial geomorphic processes structure habitats important to stream fishes. We determined relationships between densities of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and ecoregions, watershed and reach morphology, and stream habitat in eastern Oklahoma, USA. Watershed and reach morphology were measured at 128 stream sites, and stream habitat and smallmouth bass abundance were measured in 1800 channel units. Variation in stream size, channel morphology, and substrate size constituted major physical differences among sites. Channel morphology differed among ecoregions in the largest streams. Densities of age-0 and age-1 and older smallmouth bass were approximately an order of magnitude greater in the Boston Mountains and Ozark Highlands streams than in Ouachita Mountains streams. Regression tree analysis explained less variation in age-0 (10-fold cross-validated relative error = 0.843) than in age-1 and older (relative error = 0.650) smallmouth bass densities and showed that stream size and channel-unit size were primary determinants of density. Channel morphology explained variation in densities in deep channel units of large streams, which was somewhat independent of ecoregion.

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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→