MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980822790 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2019-0111

Wild salmon and the shifting baseline syndrome: application of archival and contemporary redd counts to estimate historical Chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) production potential in the central Idaho wilderness

2019· article· en· W2980822790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Russell F. Thurow, Timothy Copeland, Bryce N. Oldemeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusChinook windEscapementBaseline (sea)FisheryAbundance (ecology)EcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “shifting baseline syndrome” (SBS) is the paradigm whereby recent species abundances and environmental conditions are accepted as reflecting historical conditions. This leads to false impressions of the past, inaccurate baselines, and unrealistic recovery goals. Idaho biologists have counted Chinook salmon redds for >60 consecutive years, generating an invaluable database; however, inaccurate historical baselines compromise the utility of even such high-quality, long-term databases. To develop an accurate baseline, we integrated archival (1951–1964), maximum redd counts with contemporary (1995–2017), continuous counts and spawn timing datasets to estimate historical (1950s–1960s) wild Chinook salmon production potential. Current salmon populations average 3% of 1950s–1960s abundances, which may have been 30% of precommercial fishery (1880s) populations. Notably, the SBS has influenced contemporary managers as reflected in minimum viable abundance, sustainable escapement, and adequate seeding objectives equaling 10.4%, 17.9%, and 20.4%, respectively, of 1950s–1960s potential. Our approach provides a framework for utilizing archival and contemporary data to reconstruct historical baselines and repress SBS. Contrasting contemporary goals with maximum production potential provides new reference points and perspectives for managers to consider.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations19
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→