Comparison Between Stationary Antenna Grid and Portable Antenna Pit Systems for Studying Fish Habitat Use1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous comparons l’information sur l’usage de l’habitat aquatique obtenu de deux systèmes à transpondeur intégré passif (TIP) : un réseau d’antennes stationnaires et une antenne portable. En 2007, 53 salmonidés juvéniles ont été étiquetés par le TIP et relâchés dans le ruisseau Xavier (Québec). On a surveillé les positions des poissons avec les deux systèmes d’antennes de juillet à novembre. Le nombre d’individus détectés et le nombre de détections ont différé entre les deux systèmes et ils étaient dépendants de l’intervalle de temps utilisé pour les comparaisons. Alors que le réseau d’antennes a fourni une surveillance temporelle continuelle, l’antenne portable a fourni une couverture spatiale continuelle. Les différences observées dans les modèles spatiaux enregistrés par les deux systèmes dépendaient du comportement spatial des poissons. Les distances calculées de déplacement des poissons ont aussi été différentes entre les deux systèmes d’antennes. Les résultats soulignent l’importance de tenir compte de la résolution spatio-temporelle des systèmes de TIP qui sont utilisés pour surveiller le comportement des poissons dans les rivières naturelles. \n \n Abstract In this paper, we compare information on fish habitat use obtained from two passive integrated transponder (PIT) systems: a stationary antenna grid and a portable antenna. In 2007, 53 juvenile salmonids were PIT-tagged and released in Ruisseau Xavier (Quebec). Fish positions were monitored with both antenna systems from July to November. The number of individuals detected and the number of detections differed between the two systems, and they were dependent on the time interval used for the comparisons. While the antenna grid provided a temporally continuous monitoring, the portable antenna provided a spatially continuous coverage. Observed differences in the spatial patterns recorded with the two systems were dependent on fish spatial behaviour. Calculated movement distances of fish were also different between the two antenna systems. The results highlight the importance of considering the spatio-temporal resolution of the PIT systems that are used to monitor fish behaviour in natural rivers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".