MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184761678 · doi:10.1007/s10641-021-01114-7

Using the “mean temperature of the catch” to assess fish community responses to warming in a temperate lake

2021· article· en· W3184761678 on OpenAlexaff
Külli Kangur, Erki Tammiksaar, Daniel Pauly

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Biology of Fishes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEesti Teadusagentuur
KeywordsTemperate climateNature ConservationEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryEcologyGeographyHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This contribution applies the “mean temperature of the catch” (MTC) concept of Cheung et al. (Nature 497:365–368, 2013) to fish catch data for Lake Peipsi, Estonia/Russia, covering the years 1931 to 2019. The preferred temperature of each of the ten target fish species was obtained from the literature, and combined with the species-specific catch data to obtain MTC values for each year. The analysis of the MTC time series thus obtained with a segmented regression yielded two trend lines, one horizontal at 14.5 °C (1931–1986), and the other (1987–2019) ascending with a slope 0.85 °C·decade−1. Overall, the segmented regression model explains over half of the variance of the MTC data set (multiple R2 = 0.53; adjusted R2 = 0.51). Lake surface water temperatures correlate with MTC, even though weakly (r = 0.30), when considering a 2-year time lag. The fish community of the shallow Lake Peipsi reacts more strongly to temperature changes than marine ecosystems so far studied using the MTC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Biology of FishesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207