MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W358530867 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2015.05.003

Chemical tracking of northern pike migrations: If we restore access to breeding habitat, will they come?

2015· article· en· W358530867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel L. Oele, J. Derek Hogan, Peter B. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNature ConservancyWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsPikeEsoxTributaryHabitatFisheryGeographyOtolithWetlandEcologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape alterations can obstruct movement corridors and degrade spawning habitats for migratory fishes , requiring expensive restoration efforts. To assess use of natural and artificial waterways for spawning migrations, we monitored adult migrations and young-of-year production of northern pike ( Esox lucius ) for two years in six adjacent tributaries of southern Green Bay on Lake Michigan, USA . Field observations were compared with natal origins of young-of-year and adults inferred from otolith microchemistry. Individual tributaries varied widely in their production of young-of-year pike. Microchemical differences were apparent only among tributaries whose watersheds differ in land use, and adult pike showed no evidence of homing even to the same tributary land use class where they were born. Though otolith microchemistry suggests a lack of fidelity to natal streams, carbon stable isotope ratios of adult pike showed a latitudinal gradient across tributaries, suggesting that adult pike do not mix freely outside of the breeding season. Both field observations and microchemical tracing suggest that pike can potentially recolonize historical or newly-created breeding habitats after restoration efforts make them accessible.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes ResearchSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207