Quantifying long-term population growth rates of threatened bull trout: challenges, lessons learned, and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal symmetry models (TSM) represent advances in the analytical application of mark–recapture data to population status assessments. For a population of char, we employed 10 years of active and passive mark–recapture data to quantify population growth rates using different data sources and analytical approaches. Estimates of adult population growth rate were 1.01 (95% confidence interval = 0.84–1.20) using a temporal symmetry model (λTSM), 0.96 (0.68–1.34) based on logistic regressions of annual snorkel data (λA), and 0.92 (0.77–1.11) from redd counts (λR). Top-performing TSMs included an increasing time trend in recruitment (f) and changes in capture probability (p). There was only a 1% chance the population decreased ≥50%, and a 10% chance it decreased ≥30% (λMCMC; based on Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure). Size structure was stable; however, the adult population was dominated by small adults, and over the study period there was a decline in the contribution of large adults to total biomass. Juvenile condition decreased with increasing adult densities. Utilization of these different information sources provided a robust weight-of-evidence approach to identifying population status and potential mechanisms driving changes in population growth rates.
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 | 0.035 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".