MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760557103 · doi:10.3996/052017-jfwm-045

Catalog of Chinook Salmon Spawning Areas in Yukon River Basin in Canada and United States

2017· article· en· W2760557103 on OpenAlexaffabout
Randy J. Brown, Al von Finster, Robert J. Henszey, John H. Eiler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windEscapementOncorhynchusFisheryTributaryGeographyStructural basinDrainage basinFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha return to the Yukon River in northwestern North America each summer, migrating to spawning destinations from the lower river to more than 3,000 km upstream. These returns support numerous fisheries throughout the basin. Despite a long history of fisheries research and management, there is no comprehensive account of Chinook Salmon spawning areas in the basin. To address this issue, we cataloged, summarized, and mapped the known spawning areas of Yukon River Chinook Salmon by using a variety of sources including published articles, gray literature, and information archived in agency databases. Most of our sources were published within the past 30 y, but some refer to observations that were recorded as long ago as the late 1800s. We classified spawning areas as major or minor producers with three indicators of abundance: 1) quantitative estimates of escapement (major producer if ≥500 fish, minor producer if &amp;lt;500 fish), 2) radiotelemetry-based proportions of annual production (major producer if ≥1% of the run, minor producer if &amp;lt;1% of the run), and 3) aerial survey index counts (major producer if ≥165 fish observed, minor producer if &amp;lt;165 fish observed). We documented 183 spawning areas in the Yukon River basin, 79 in the United States, and 104 in Canada. Most spawning areas were in tributary streams, but some were in main-stem reaches as well. We classified 32 spawning areas as major producers and 151 as minor producers. The Chinook Salmon spawning areas cataloged here provide a baseline that makes it possible to strategically direct abundance, biological sampling, and genetics projects for maximum effect and to assess both spatial and temporal changes within the basin.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207