MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3171381351 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2019-0448

A management-scale investigation of consistent individual differences in behaviour and trapping bias in sea lamprey (<i>Petromyzon marinus</i>)

2021· article· en· W3171381351 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachel R. Holub, Gale Bravener, Robert L. McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsPetromyzonLampreyTrap (plumbing)FisheryTrappingScale (ratio)EcologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceZoologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is invasive in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Trapping in large rivers could suppress sea lamprey recruitment by removing migrating adults prior to spawning. Currently, the proportion of sea lamprey trapped (efficiency) is too low for control purposes, possibly because trapping is biased toward certain behavioural types. We tested if individual differences in time to enter a novel environment (risk-taking) and proportion of time moving (activity) under standardized laboratory conditions were correlated with time to encounter and enter a trap in the field. 638 sea lamprey were tagged, assessed for risk-taking and activity in sequential trials, and released in the river to be trapped. In the laboratory, individuals differed consistently in risk-taking and activity behaviours, and more active individuals entered a simulated trap sooner than less active individuals. In the field, however, the times to first trap encounter, and capture in a trap, were not correlated with risk-taking or activity. Our study provides a novel demonstration of how patterns from small-scale behavioural studies may not extend to management-scale applications.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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