MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802468977 · doi:10.1002/nafm.10052

Performance of Instream Jordan–Scotty Salmon Egg Incubators Under Different Installation and Sedimentation Conditions

2018· article· en· W2802468977 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig F. Purchase, Brittany Palm‐Flawd, Louis Charron

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFondation Pour La Conservation Du Saumon Atlantique
KeywordsIncubatorSedimentationIncubationPopulationBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisherySedimentEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fish stocking, in which natural populations are supplemented with progeny through some unnatural means, is widespread and takes many forms. Long-term benefits of population viability are generally greatest when individuals are subjected to as little artificial rearing as possible. For salmonids, instream incubation enables embryo exposure to natural conditions during a critical developmental period. The Jordan–Scotty incubator is a new tool that facilitates the ability to conduct instream incubation on a semi-large scale. However, the performance of this type of incubator is affected by sedimentation. We quantified sediment accumulation within Jordan–Scotty incubators when installed using four potential methods in a blocked design that eliminated confounding space–time variables. Although sediment accumulation was highly variable, there appeared to be no benefit in taking the extra effort to install the incubators under gravel as recommended by the manufacturer. Incubator exposure to streamflow can be achieved in several ways and reduces sedimentation. We recommend the use of pre-installed plastic milk crates as incubator receptacles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207