Sampling the stream landscape: improving the applicability of an ecoregion-level capture probability model for stream fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal and spatial variability in streams result in heterogeneous gear capture probability (i.e., the proportion of available individuals identified) that confounds interpretation of data used to monitor fish abundance. We modeled tow-barge electrofishing capture probability at multiple spatial scales for nine Ozark Highland stream fishes. In addition to fish size, we identified seven reach-scale environmental characteristics associated with variable capture probability: stream discharge, water depth, conductivity, water clarity, emergent vegetation, wetted width–depth ratio, and proportion of riffle habitat. The magnitude of the relationship between capture probability and both discharge and depth varied among stream fishes. We also identified lithological characteristics among stream segments as a coarse-scale source of variable capture probability. The resulting capture probability model can be used to adjust catch data and derive reach-scale absolute abundance estimates across a wide range of sampling conditions with similar effort as used in more traditional fisheries surveys (i.e., catch per unit effort). Adjusting catch data based on variable capture probability improves the comparability of data sets, thus promoting both well-informed conservation and management decisions and advances in stream-fish ecology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".