MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171341895 · doi:10.1111/rec.13431

Empirical support for a strategy for the restoration of Pugnose Shiner (<i>Notropis anogenus</i>)

2021· article· en· W3171341895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Foster, Brent C. Lehman, Douglas M. Carlson, Jason M. Ratchford, Brielle Robbins, Michael W. Soukup

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
KeywordsNotropisEndangered speciesBroodstockBayFisheryEcologyGeographyBiologyAquacultureFish <Actinopterygii>HabitatArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over much of its range, Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) populations are isolated and endangered. This study tested the feasibility of pond culturing Pugnose Shiner for restoration. In 2015, 65 wild broodstock from Sodus Bay, New York State's last remaining Lake Ontario population, were stocked into a 0.2ha aquaculture pond. Thousands of juveniles were quickly produced, and during 2016–2017, 7,400 pond‐reared Pugnose Shiner were stocked into Chaumont Bay, Lake Ontario. Poststocking surveys in 2020 demonstrated the establishment of 4‐year classes in Chaumont Bay from natural reproduction. Following the successful establishment of Pugnose Shiner in Chaumont Bay, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recommended the downlisting of the Pugnose Shiner from Endangered to Special Concern. The restoration strategy described here is applicable to other sites in the United States and Canada, where this species is also of conservation concern.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestoration EcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207