MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967504970 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0352

Bayesian arrival model for Atlantic salmon smolt counts powered by environmental covariates and expert knowledge

2019· article· en· W2967504970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henni Pulkkinen, Panu Orell, Jaakko Erkinaro, Samu Mäntyniemi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmoCovariateBayesian probabilityStatisticsFisheryEnvironmental scienceBayesian inferenceComputer scienceEcologyEconometricsFish <Actinopterygii>MathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annual run size and timing of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolt migration was estimated using Bayesian model framework and data from 6 years of a video monitoring survey. The model has a modular structure. It separates subprocesses of departing, traveling, and observing, of which the first two together define the arrival distribution. The subprocesses utilize biological background and expert knowledge about the migratory behavior of smolts and about the probability to observe them from the video footage under varying environmental conditions. Daily mean temperature and discharge were used as environmental covariates. The model framework does not require assuming a simple distributional shape for the arrival dynamics and thus also allows for multimodal arrival distributions. Results indicate that 20%–43% of smolts passed the Utsjoki monitoring site unobserved during the years of study. Predictive studies were made to estimate daily run size in cases with missing counts either at the beginning or in the middle of the run, indicating good predictive performance.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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