MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203667441 · doi:10.1002/tafs.10336

Postrelease Survival and Migration Behavior of Adult Walleye Following Intracoelomic Transmitter Implantation Using Two Methods of Electro‐Immobilization

2021· article· en· W3203667441 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor H. Reid, Matthew D. Faust, Graham D. Raby, Travis O. Brenden, Steven J. Cooke, Christopher S. Vandergoot

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOhio Sea Grant College, Ohio State UniversityGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>TributaryHatcheryFisheryEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of electricity as a method of fish restraint (i.e., electro‐immobilization) during field and hatchery operations has increased recently, and a need exists for field‐based assessments of the effects of these techniques on the postrelease physiology, behavior, and survival of wild fish to develop best handling practices. Two common waveforms used in electro‐immobilization are continuous and pulsed DC (cDC and pDC, respectively). With cDC, fish are immobilized through exposure to a continuous weak current and recover almost immediately once the current ceases. With pDC, fish are incapacitated via brief exposure to a strong current and often require several minutes to recover (i.e., regain equilibrium). Here, we present a comparison of cDC and pDC electro‐immobilization techniques and their effects on the postrelease survival and spawning migration behavior of adult Walleye Sander vitreus in a Lake Erie tributary. Fish were intracoelomically implanted with acoustic transmitters and then tracked by a network of acoustic receivers throughout Lake Erie that provided extensive spatiotemporal coverage of posttagging movements. Survival did not differ between the two electro‐immobilization treatments but was somewhat lower than in a control group consisting of fish tagged several years earlier (e.g., 50‐d survival = 69% for the pDC group, 61% for the cDC group, and 90% for control fish). We did not find any plausible or biologically meaningful effects of treatment on downstream movement or migratory behavior over subsequent months postrelease. Our results suggest that the two electro‐immobilization techniques did not differ in their effects on adult Walleye behavior, but more work is needed to elucidate the extent to which electro‐immobilization in general contributes to potential decreases in survival versus other aspects of capture and handling associated with performing surgical procedures.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207