MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2885510933 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0124

Quantifying <sup>87</sup>Sr/<sup>86</sup>Sr temporal stability and spatial heterogeneity for use in tracking fish movement

2018· article· en· W2885510933 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lindsy R. Ciepiela, Annika W. Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial heterogeneitySpatial variabilitySampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceSpatial ecologyStability (learning theory)StatisticsEcologyPhysical geographyBiologyGeographyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specificity and accuracy of inferred fish origin and movement relies on describing spatial heterogeneity and temporal stability of environmental signatures. But the cost and logistics of sample collection often precludes the complete quantification of environmental signature temporal stability and spatial heterogeneity. We used repeated sampling and a novel approach (Bayesian ridge regression, BRR) to quantify the temporal stability and spatial heterogeneity of 87Sr/86Sr, respectively. We explained 86% of observed variation in 87Sr/86Sr using a BRR model and estimated 87Sr/86Sr throughout the Upper North Platte River Basin with high accuracy (±0.00106). Year to year variation in 87Sr/86Sr signatures ranged from 0.00007 to 0.00073 (SD), while seasonal variation ranged from 0.00091 to 0.00134 (SD). We then assessed the specificity and discussed the accuracy of inferring movement using three scenarios of described spatial heterogeneity. Our results indicate reliable inference of fish movement requires comprehensive quantification of spatial heterogeneity and temporal variation in environmental signatures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→