MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476178503 · doi:10.1139/er-2016-0006

A comparison of metrics to evaluate the effects of hydro-facility passage stressors on fish

2016· article· en· W2476178503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alison H. Colotelo, Amy Goldman, Katie A. Wagner, Richard S. Brown, Zhiqun Deng, Marshall C. Richmond

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryBattelleU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHydropowerComparabilityContext (archaeology)Environmental scienceHabitatStressorFisheryEnvironmental resource managementFish mortalityEcologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydropower is the most common form of renewable energy, and countries worldwide are considering expanding hydropower to new areas. One of the challenges of hydropower deployment is mitigation of the environmental impacts including water quality, habitat alterations, and ecosystem connectivity. For fish species that inhabit river systems with hydropower facilities, passage through the facility to access spawning and rearing habitats can be particularly challenging. Fish moving downstream through a hydro facility can be exposed to a number of stressors (e.g., rapid decompression, cavitation, blade strike and collision, turbulence, and shear forces), which can affect fish survival in direct and indirect ways. Many studies have investigated the effects of hydroturbine passage on fish; however, the comparability among studies is limited by variation in the metrics and biological endpoints used. Future studies investigating the effects of hydroturbine passage should focus on using metrics and endpoints that are easily comparable. This review summarizes four categories of metrics that are used in fisheries research that have application to hydroturbine passage (i.e., mortality, injury, physiological markers, behavior) and evaluates them based on several criteria (i.e., resources needed, invasiveness, comparability among stressors and species, and diagnostic properties). Additionally, these comparisons are put into context of study setting (i.e., laboratory versus field). Overall, injury and physiological markers are ideal for studies in which there is a need to understand the mechanisms of effect, whereas behavior and mortality metrics provide information on the whole body response of the fish. The study setting strongly influences the comparability among studies. In laboratory-based studies, stressors can be controlled by type, intensity, and duration, allowing for easy comparisons among studies. In contrast, field studies expose fish to realistic passage environments but the comparability is limited. Based on these results, future studies, whether lab or field-based, should focus on metrics that relate to mortality for ease of comparison, while some diagnostic capability is important for furthering the science.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207