MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214263883

Session C3: Balancing Ocean and Freshwater Survival Rates When Managing Anadromous Fish Passage

2015· article· en· W2214263883 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Welch, Erin L. Rechisky, Aswea D. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish migrationFisherySession (web analytics)Fish <Actinopterygii>OceanographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyBusinessGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract:\nSalmon conservation efforts typically assume that expediting smolt movements into the ocean to mimic historic flow conditions will improve overall survival in dammed river systems. Management agencies are therefore encouraged to reduce the duration of the freshwater migration phase by increasing migration rates using approaches such as increasing spill, transport, or reservoir drawdown and, in extreme cases, dam breaching. Telemetry results for Snake River Spring Chinook smolts in the Columbia River (western North America) allow us to compare survival rates in four successive habitats in 2006-08: Hydropower system (8 dams), Estuary, River Plume, and Coastal Ocean. Relative to the Hydrosystem, daily survival rates were usually lowest in the Estuary and Plume, while Coastal Ocean survival rates were slightly lower than the Hydrosystem. Critically, marine survival rates never exceeded hydrosystem survival rates. It is also possible to compare the survival rates of various species of acoustically tagged salmon reaching the mouth of the Columbia River with those making a similar migration down the undammed Fraser River in Canada. We will compare these survival values and show how they are similar and where they are different.\nOverall, because management actions reducing freshwater residence time increase saltwater residence time by equivalent amounts, accelerating the movement of smolts out of the hydrosystem may be counterproductive and be economically costly, because such actions may simply change the location where smolts die, not improve survival as intended. Whether a chosen hydrosystem action actually enhances salmon conservation thus depends upon whether ocean survival rates are higher or lower than in freshwater. Using the data collected over the past decade using rigorously designed telemetry systems, my company has been able to develop a useful database of comparative survival rates demonstrating that there may be significant opportunity to increase both salmon conservation and power generation in years of poor ocean conditions by slowing freshwater migration rates, because a net survival benefit may accrue from remaining in freshwater for longer periods. Simply put, freshwater losses may be lower than those experienced in the ocean.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1550.036

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207