Abiotic Habitat Assessment for Arctic Grayling in a Portion of the Big Manistee River, Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus were once the dominant salmonid in the Big Manistee River, Michigan, but were extirpated from the watershed around 1900 and from the state of Michigan by 1936, likely due to overfishing, biotic interactions with introduced fish species, and habitat loss occurring largely around the turn of the 20th century. An interest in reestablishing native species by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians led to an assessment of environmental conditions in a portion of the watershed encompassing 21 km of the Big Manistee River to determine whether suitable Arctic Grayling habitat remains. During summer in 2011–2013, abiotic habitat metrics, including water characteristics, substrate composition, channel profile, channel geomorphic unit, and stream velocity, were assessed across eight tributaries within the watershed. To assess whether abiotic conditions in these tributaries might support Arctic Grayling, the environmental conditions were compared to literature values from rivers where current or historical Arctic Grayling populations have been reported. This comparison, in conjunction with an assessment using a habitat suitability index for Arctic Grayling, indicated that important abiotic conditions were within ranges consistent with those associated with current and past populations of Arctic Grayling in North America. The results of this study will guide potential future reintroductions and indicate that suitable Arctic Grayling habitat does exist in portions of the Big Manistee River watershed, an assessment that will be further refined when coupled with biotic features of the environment. Received September 6, 2016; accepted February 28, 2017 Published online May 9, 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".