MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3104078575 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2020-0162

Revisiting the restricted movement paradigm: the dispersal of Atlantic salmon fry from artificial redds

2020· article· en· W3104078575 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zachary J. Eisenhauer, Paul M. Christman, Jean‐Michel Matte, William R. Ardren, Dylan J. Fraser, James W. A. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalElectrofishingSalmoStockingFisheryHabitatSTREAMSUpstream and downstream (DNA)EcologyUpstream (networking)BiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The restricted movement paradigm (RMP) asserts that stream fishes are sedentary, living much of their lives within a single reach. To test the RMP, we implanted eyed Atlantic salmon eggs (Salmo salar) into a total of 19 artificial redds, in seven salmon-free streams, in 6 years, and estimated summer fry dispersal through electrofishing surveys. As expected, most fry dispersed downstream, but an average of 35% moved upstream. Surprisingly, fry moved just as far upstream as downstream (medians = 403 and 404 m, respectively). Fry were larger at lower densities and farther from redd sites, consistent with density-dependent growth, and larger upstream than downstream, possibly indicating that larger fry were better able to move upstream against the current. Dispersal distances were normally distributed around all but two of 19 redds, and half of the downstream dispersal curves were best described by unimodal distributions, consistent with a homogeneous movement strategy. Our data suggest that salmon fry were more mobile and move upstream more than previously thought, which should facilitate their stocking or reintroduction to new habitats.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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