Does habitat occupancy by lake trout and lake whitefish in large lakes match published thermal habitat envelopes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Habitat occupancy patterns of lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ) and lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) in two large Canadian Shield lakes were modelled based on detections of fish from repeated depth‐stratified surveys over several summers. Lake trout and lake whitefish consistently occupied sites outside traditional thermal envelopes and were not detected at some sites within these ranges. This included the metalimnion and shallow epilimnion for lake trout and lake whitefish in Lake Opeongo. Physical habitat covariates were not important in defining lake trout habitat in both lakes. Physical habitat as represented by the hardness/softness gradient based on acoustic substrate surveys was important for lake whitefish in Lake Opeongo but not in Smoke Lake. In addition, thermal envelopes for lake whitefish differed between the lakes possibly because of differences in substrate slope. The wash zone of lakes, where the thermocline contacts the substrate, appears to be a physical habitat feature for lake whitefish in some lakes. Lake whitefish also exhibited diurnal activity behaviour that was reflected through greater detection rates in the morning versus the afternoon. By accounting for imperfect detection, true estimated overall occupancy of lake trout and lake whitefish increased 0.15–0.30 over naïve occupancy. Thermal habitat envelopes for lake trout and lake whitefish are wider than previously thought. Lake trout occupied a consistent thermal habitat envelope while lake whitefish varied between lakes likely because of lake specific differences in basin morphology and wash zone.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".