MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600318558 · doi:10.1080/02755947.2017.1308893

Differences in Stocking Success among Geographically Distinct Stocks of Juvenile Muskellunge in Illinois Lakes

2017· article· en· W2600318558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew J. Diana, Curtis P. Wagner, David H. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesIllinois Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsStockingFisheryDrainageGeographyStock (firearms)JuvenileEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Muskellunge Esox masquinongy are broadly distributed across the northern United States and southern Canada. Intraspecific genetic variation suggests the existence of divergent stocks related to residence in major river drainages. Populations and stocks have likely adapted to specific environmental conditions associated with geographic location, especially latitude and the associated thermal regime. In this study, we examined differences in survival and growth among stocks of juvenile Muskellunge stocked into lakes throughout Illinois. Muskellunge from the Ohio River drainage stock, the upper Mississippi River drainage stock, and the current mixed Illinois broodstock were used for comparisons. Stocking mortality was related to temperature and was greatest for Illinois and Ohio River drainage fish that were stocked during the early fall. Mississippi River drainage fish experienced high mortality over the first summer after stocking, resulting in the lowest abundance during the second fall poststocking. In addition to low catch rates, Muskellunge from the Mississippi River drainage were significantly smaller than fish from the Illinois and Ohio River drainage stocks by the second fall. Populations from similar latitudes and climate (Illinois and Ohio) performed the best in terms of survival and growth and should be utilized in future stockings. Received October 7, 2016; accepted March 15, 2017 Published online May 4, 2017

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207