Hard choices in assessing survival past dams — a comparison of single- and paired-release strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mark–recapture models are widely used to estimate survival of salmon smolts migrating past dams. Paired releases have been used to improve estimate accuracy by removing components of mortality not attributable to the dam. This method is accompanied by reduced precision because (i) sample size is reduced relative to a single, large release; and (ii) variance calculations inflate error. We modeled an idealized system with a single dam to assess trade-offs between accuracy and precision and compared methods using root mean squared error (RMSE). Simulations were run under predefined conditions (dam mortality, background mortality, detection probability, and sample size) to determine scenarios when the paired release was preferable to a single release. We demonstrate that a paired-release design provides a theoretical advantage over a single-release design only at large sample sizes and high probabilities of detection. At release numbers typical of many survival studies, paired release can result in overestimation of dam survival. Failures to meet model assumptions of a paired release may result in further overestimation of dam-related survival. Under most conditions, a single-release strategy was preferable.
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 | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".