Identifying links between Fluvial Geomorphic Response Units (FGRUs) and fish species in the Assiniboine River, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Assiniboine River, located in east central Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba, provides recreational opportunities, irrigation, and industrial and municipal water resources to Manitoba residents while supporting a diverse fish fauna. Improving our understanding of patterns in the spatial distribution of different fish species in relation to physical habitat features can aid management of this important water resource. The Fluvial Geomorphic Response Unit (FGRU) method is a geospatial modelling technique that allows the classification of large‐scale river reaches that exhibit similar geomorphic structure and provide a link between the hydrological regime and physical riverine habitats. Historical electrofishing data provide catch per unit effort data for various fish species and allow an investigation of fish distribution among different FGRUs. This study has identified significant differences (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0·05) in the catch per unit effort between three FGRUs for ten fish species in the Assiniboine River. These findings have the potential to increase our understanding of habitat complexity, availability, and connectivity in prairie rivers, a valuable tool for resource managers. This model can contribute to the development of sampling programmes by allowing efficient a priori site selection, ensuring sampling of diverse unit types and thus a greater representation of the range of physical habitats present within a river system. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".