MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2164542926 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0320

Influence of wind, wave, and water level dynamics on walleye eggs in a north temperate lake

2014· article· en· W2164542926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua K. Raabe, Michael A. Bozek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreSpawn (biology)Water levelWave heightWind waveReefEnvironmental scienceOceanographyFisheryHydrology (agriculture)EcologyBiologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walleye (Sander vitreus) populations are cyclic because of biotic and abiotic factors, and wind activity, wave energy, and water levels may be influential given walleye spawn close to shore. We installed an anemometer and tridirectional velocimeter on a spawning reef in Big Crooked Lake, Wisconsin, in 2005 to determine wind–wave relationships and wave energy exceedance of critical velocities of both egg (affecting transport) and substrates (affecting abrasion or burial). To evaluate egg movement, we delineated egg locations at adhesive, postspawn, and black-eyed stages and surveyed on-shore for stranded eggs. We monitored water level with a staff gauge. Wind and wave velocities were significantly (p < 0.01) correlated, and wave velocities were significantly higher (p < 0.01) nearshore (2.0 m) than further from shore (4.6 m). Mean nearshore wave velocities were often sufficient to initiate movement of nonadhesive eggs (45% of records) and fine sand (39%) during egg incubation. Surveys indicated waves moved eggs closer to shore and some onto shore. Water level fluctuations (range = 2.4 cm) likely did not strand or desiccate eggs. We documented that wind and wave activity transports eggs and substrates and should be considered a critical factor in annual walleye egg survival and year-class strength.

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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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