Modelling the dispersal of riverine fish larvae: from a raster-based analysis of movement patterns within a racetrack flume to a rheoreaction-based correlated random walk (RCRW) model approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment of Chondrostoma nasus and similar fish species in rivers is related to spatiotemporal linkages between larval hatching and nursery habitats. Active swimming behaviour contradicts the assumption that passive particle tracing models can serve as a proxy for larval dispersal models. A racetrack flume with an inshore area of near-natural slope was created to observe individual larval trajectories. A new three-step, raster-based analysis was developed to distinguish four types of movement patterns: active upstream, active downstream, active–passive, and passive. Both larval developmental stage-specific and release site-specific occurrences of these movement patterns were experimentally found for nine flow velocity classes (≤0.225 m·s−1). These current-induced movement patterns, and evaluated durations within them, were used to develop a biased and correlated random walk model that includes rheoreaction — a key behavioural response of fish to flow within rivers. The study introduces the concept and application of a rheoreaction-based correlated random walk model, which coupled with a 3D hydrodynamic model, allows prediction of the spatiotemporal effects of various river discharges, morphologies, and restoration scenarios on larval fish dispersal.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".