Quantitative methods for analysing cumulative effects on fish migration success: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often recognized, but seldom addressed, that a quantitative assessment of the cumulative effects, both additive and non-additive, of multiple stressors on fish survival would provide a more realistic representation of the factors that influence fish migration. This review presents a compilation of analytical methods applied to a well-studied fish migration, a more general review of quantitative multivariable methods, and a synthesis on how to apply new analytical techniques in fish migration studies. A compilation of adult migration papers from Fraser River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka revealed a limited number of multivariable methods being applied and the sub-optimal reliance on univariable methods for multivariable problems. The literature review of fisheries science, general biology and medicine identified a large number of alternative methods for dealing with cumulative effects, with a limited number of techniques being used in fish migration studies. An evaluation of the different methods revealed that certain classes of multivariable analyses will probably prove useful in future assessments of cumulative effects on fish migration. This overview and evaluation of quantitative methods gathered from the disparate fields should serve as a primer for anyone seeking to quantify cumulative effects on fish migration survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".