Developing restoration targets for nearshore fish populations in two Areas of Concern in Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restoration targets for nearshore fish populations in Hamilton Harbour and Toronto Harbour–Areas of Concern–were developed. Fish were captured in trap nets at Hamilton Harbour, Toronto Harbour, and nine unimpaired embayments of Lake Ontario. Embayments were sampled at least once and up to nine times during 2006–2013. Principal components analysis indicated the fish communities in unimpaired embayments clustered into two groups. One group had larger exposure distance (opening) to Lake Ontario and larger exposure index (surface area ÷ opening), and was termed “exposed.” The alternate group was “sheltered.” Fish communities in unimpaired embayments followed an aquatic macrophyte gradient of open-water species (e.g. White Bass, Gizzard Shad) at one end and species associated with vegetative cover (e.g. Bluegill, Pumpkinseed) at the other. A second fish community gradient was correlated with embayment opening and exposure index, and may be associated with habitat stability and exchanges with colder water from Lake Ontario. Hamilton Harbour is a sheltered embayment, but principal components analysis indicated the fish community was significantly different from all other embayments, consistent with its Area of Concern status. Northern Pike and Yellow Perch were the only target species in Hamilton Harbour close in abundance to unimpaired sheltered embayments. Common Carp, Brown Bullhead, Channel Catfish, and others were an order of magnitude higher than in unimpaired sheltered embayments. Toronto Harbour is an exposed embayment, and principal components analysis indicated the fish community was not significantly different from unimpaired embayments. Likewise, the abundance of most of the target species in Toronto Harbour was close to unimpaired embayments. Walleye, Smallmouth Bass, and Rock Bass were depressed and Gizzard Shad was elevated in Toronto Harbour, compared to unimpaired embayments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".