MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2184550300

The Status of Coastal Cutthroat Trout in British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2184550300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allan B. Costello

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroutWildlife conservationEndangered speciesHabitatGeographyWildlifeOverexploitationHabitat destructionFisheryWildlife managementConservation statusEcologyFaunaBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal cutthroat trout are an important component of British Columbia's freshwater fauna and have a wide distribution in low-lying coastal areas of the province. Few cutthroat systems, however, are routinely monitored in a systematic fashion and the status of many individual populations remains largely unknown. A recent status review for the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada suggests that cumulative development pressures and anthropogenic influence have left many cutthroat populations susceptible to local extirpation. As in other areas to the south, habitat degradation, overharvesting, and negative interactions with introduced fishes have all contributed to declines. The largest impediments to conservation in the province remain the lack of adequate habitat protection, unconstrained land and water use, and an under appreciation of the importance of small streams to trout conservation. While the majority of cutthroat populations in British Columbia are likely stable, those located in the densely populated Georgia Basin appear to be particularly at risk of extirpation and are deserving of additional conservation measures.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→