Comparative regional assessment of factors impacting freshwater fish biodiversity in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a broad analysis of freshwater fish species biodiversity in relation to environmental and stress metrics throughout Canada. Species presenceabsence data were used to calculate richness and rarity indices by tertiary watershed. Richness is higher in the southern parts of Canada, whereas rarity is concentrated in a "ring of rarity" around the periphery of the country. Environmental and stress indices were developed for each watershed using readily available mapped information. The environmental index was estimated using growing degree-days above 5°C, elevation range (m) within the watershed, mean annual sunshine hours, and mean annual vapour pressure (kPa). The number of crop farms, forestry, waste management, and petroleum refining facilities, road density (km·1000 km2), dwelling density, and discharge sites (chimneys and laundry outlets) per 1000 km2 described the human stresses in each watershed. Conservation priority rankings were developed for the watersheds using an integrative index of the three indices. Watersheds in southern Ontario and British Columbia were ranked high because they contain the greatest biodiversity and the most stress. This study indicates how regional analyses can guide fisheries and watershed management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".