Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of physical and biological factors on juvenile interior Fraser coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) habitat use was examined within the Horsefly River watershed using three approaches. Otolith microchemistry was used to assess potential movement of juveniles throughout the watershed. This analysis showed evidence of an average of 3.5 movements to different habitats within the Horsefly watershed during the juvenile lifestage. It was not possible to track the location and timing of most of those migrations, but some appear to be the result of a movement into small tributaries in late summer and winter. A microhabitat model was used to determine physical characteristics of habitats where juvenile coho were captured. Low velocity, small stream width, a greater proportion of gravel as substrate, and high instream and overhead cover were strongly related to the distribution of juvenile coho within the streams examined. A behavioural study in an artificial stream channel assessed the type of interactions that occur among juvenile coho. Juvenile interior Fraser coho exhibited little evidence of territoriality, contrasting with published reports of highly territorial juvenile coho behavior in coastal systems. The lack of territoriality of the interior Fraser coho studies, their frequent migrations, and their strong association with cover, all suggest interior Fraser coho exhibit different habitat use patterns than coho in coastal streams. The difference in habitat use and requirements may influence the effectiveness of current management strategies, many of which are based solely on criteria from coastal coho research studies. --P. ii.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".