MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3137528464 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v134i4.2373

Banded Killifish (<i>Fundulus diaphanus</i>) and Mummichog (<i>Fundulus heteroclitus</i>) distributions in insular Newfoundland waters: implications for a Species at Risk

2021· article· en· W3137528464 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Philip S. Sargent, Kate L. Dalley, Derek R. Osborne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaParks CanadaUniversity of Connecticut
KeywordsFundulusDorsal finEndangered speciesKillifishFisheryPopulationBiologyEstuaryGeographyEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>Habitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newfoundland’s Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) population is listed as a species of Special Concern under Canada’s Species at Risk Act and Vulnerable under Newfoundland and Labrador’s Endangered Species Act. Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) is a similar looking fish species and is currently under review by Newfoundland and Labrador’s Species Status Advisory Committee. Both species have limited known distributions in Newfoundland waters that overlap. They may occur sympatrically in estuaries and occasionally hybridize; thus, field identifications can be challenging. We found that dorsal fin position and caudal fin depth were the most useful morphological characters for distinguishing Banded Killifish and Mummichog in the field. We used local ecological knowledge, literature review, museum records, and field surveys to update the known distribution ranges and found both species in more locations than previously documented in Newfoundland. Thus, we extend their known ranges. Our results will be critical in future status assessments of these species in Newfoundland.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→