MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170042539 · doi:10.1139/f05-256

Effects of low-head barriers on stream fishes: taxonomic affiliations and morphological correlates of sensitive species

2006· article· en· W2170042539 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Robert L. McLaughlin, Louise Porto, David L. G. Noakes, Jeffrey R. Baylis, Leon M. Carl, Hope R. Dodd, Jon D. Goldstein, Daniel B. Hayes, Robert G. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsPetromyzonElectrofishingSTREAMSTaxonTaxonomic rankTributaryBiologyLampreyEcologySpecies richnessHabitatFisheryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-head barriers used in the control of parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the basin of the Laurentian Great Lakes can alter the richness and composition of nontarget fishes in tributary streams. Identification of taxa sensitive to these barriers is an important step toward mitigating these effects. Upstream–downstream distributions of fishes in 24 pairs of barrier and reference streams from throughout the basin were estimated using electrofishing surveys. For 48 common species from 34 genera and 12 taxonomic families, 8–19 species, 5–16 genera, and 2–7 families showed evidence of being sensitive to barriers, with the variation in number depending on the statistical measure applied. Barriers did not differentially affect species from certain genera or families, nor did they affect species of certain body form. Therefore, taxonomic affiliation and swimming morphology are not useful for predicting sensitivity to barriers for fishes that co-occurred with sea lampreys but were not sampled adequately by our survey. Our estimates of sensitivity will help fisheries managers make sound, defensible decisions regarding the construction, modification (for fish passage), and removal of small, in-stream barriers.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations79
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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