MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2688469583 · doi:10.1002/rra.3173

Fish age and size distributions and species composition in a large, hydropeaking <scp>P</scp>rairie <scp>R</scp>iver

2017· article· en· W2688469583 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eva C. Enders, Douglas A. Watkinson, Haitham Ghamry, Kingston H. G. Mills, W. G. Franzin

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsVideo Pool Media Arts CentreResearch ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaCisco Systems
KeywordsHydroelectricityEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Upstream and downstream (DNA)Fish <Actinopterygii>HabitatSTREAMSDownstream (manufacturing)Juvenile fishFaunaStreamflowUpstream (networking)EcologyFisheryBiologyGeographyDrainage basinGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fluctuations in river flows result from diverse natural and/or anthropogenic causes. Hydropeaking, an important anthropogenic flow alteration, results from the rapid increase or decrease of water releases from reservoirs at hydroelectric power stations to meet variable demand for electrical power, thereby altering the flow regime of the river downstream of the hydroelectric power station. Hydropeaking causes short‐term, artificial fluctuations in flow on an hourly, daily, and/or weekly basis. The frequent and regular occurrences of these high and low flow events are fundamentally different from natural flood and drought events and may affect fish fauna. We compared the fish species composition and fish age and size distributions in the Saskatchewan River (Saskatchewan, Canada) downstream of a hydropeaking facility with results from an unaffected Reference Site situated upstream of the reservoir. Lower fish diversity was observed in the 2 downstream sites (Sites 1 and 2, number of species = 11 and 9, respectively) closest to Generating Station in comparison to Site 3 ( n = 15) situated further downstream and the upstream reference site ( n = 13). There was no difference in the age–length relationship of any of the fish species above and below the Generating Station suggesting that fish grew at the same rates. However, lower numbers of small‐bodied and juvenile fish were caught downstream of the Generating Station suggesting the possibility of increased mortality, decreased habitat suitability, or altered behaviour of small fish downstream of the dam. These data illustrate potential impacts of hydropeaking power stations and has management implications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiver Research and ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207