MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2614318935 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0459

Rainbow trout movement behavior and habitat occupancy are influenced by sex and Pacific salmon presence in an Alaska river system

2017· article· en· W2614318935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin M. Fraley, Jeffrey A. Falke, Megan V. McPhee, Anupma Prakash

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutFisheryHabitatOccupancyTroutSalmoOncorhynchusSalmonidaeEnvironmental scienceEcologyFish migrationBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used spatially continuous field-measured and remotely sensed aquatic habitat characteristics paired with weekly ground-based telemetry tracking and snorkel surveys to describe movements and habitat occupancy of adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (N = 82) in a runoff-fed, salmon-influenced southcentral Alaska river system. We found that during the ice-free feeding season (June through September) rainbow trout occurrence was associated more with fine-scale (channel unit) characteristics relative to coarse-scale (stream reach) variables. The presence of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp., which provide an important seasonal food subsidy) and habitat size were particularly useful predictors. Weekly movement distance differed between pre- and postspawning salmon arrival, but did not vary by sex. Habitat quality, season, and the arrival of spawning salmon influenced the likelihood of rainbow trout movement, and fish moved farther to seek out higher-quality habitats. Because rainbow trout respond to habitat factors at multiple scales and seek out salmon-derived subsidies, it will be important to take a multiscale approach in protecting trout and salmon populations and managing the associated fisheries.

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)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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