MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2587466571 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0445

Spatial mismatch between sea lamprey behaviour and trap location explains low success at trapping for control

2017· article· en· W2587466571 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Andrew M. Rous, Adrienne R. McLean, Jessica Barber, Gale Bravener, Theodore Castro‐Santos, Christopher M. Holbrook, I. Imre, Thomas C. Pratt, Robert L. McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaAlgoma UniversityOntario Innovation TrustGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsPetromyzonLampreyTrap (plumbing)FisheryHydroelectricityEnvironmental scienceTrappingEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crucial to the management of invasive species is understanding space use and the environmental features affecting space use. Improved understanding of space use by invasive sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) could help researchers discern why trap success in large rivers is lower than needed for effective control. We tested whether manipulating discharge nightly could increase trap success at a hydroelectric generating station on the St. Marys River. We quantified numbers of acoustically tagged sea lampreys migrating up to, and their space use at, the hydroelectric generating station. In 2011 and 2012, 78% and 68%, respectively, of tagged sea lampreys reached the generating station. Sea lampreys were active along the face, but more likely to occur at the bottom and away from the traps near the surface, especially when discharge was high. Our findings suggest that a low probability of encountering traps was due to spatial (vertical) mismatch between space use by sea lamprey and trap locations and that increasing discharge did not alter space use in ways that increased trap encounter. Understanding space use by invasive species can help managers assess the efficacy of trapping and ways of improving trapping success.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→