MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179152077 · doi:10.52201/cej18hjvu9134

Autumn electrofishing reduces harm to Ontario (Canada) stream fishes collected during watershed health monitoring

2021· article· en· W3179152077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott M. Reid, Anita LeBaron

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Evidence Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrofishingFisheryWatershedSampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceSTREAMSGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrofishing surveys provide important information on watershed health, and the status of imperiled and recreationally important stream fishes. Concerns about the harmful effects of electrofishing on the endangered redside dace Clinostomus elongatus have resulted in restrictions on its use in sampling activities in the province of Ontario, Canada. However, the effectiveness of these restrictions is unproven. We undertook a paired sampling gear study in 2018-2019 to test whether an alternate gear (seine nets) or a change in electrofishing timing (autumn rather than summer) reduced harm to stream fishes. The study took place in streams located in the Greater Toronto Area. We found large differences in the frequency and magnitude of sampling-related mortalities between sampling gear and seasons. During individual surveys, electrofishing mortality never exceeded 9% in the summer or 4% in the autumn, while seining-related mortality reached 60% at two stream sites. Overall, autumn electrofishing resulted in mortality rates that were 5.6 and 15 times lower than summer electrofishing and summer seining. These results indicate that survival of Ontario stream fishes can be improved by delaying electrofishing until early autumn.

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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation Evidence JournalSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207