MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206165069 · doi:10.1002/nafm.10724

Using Surrogate Taxa to Inform Response Methods for Invasive Grass Carp in the Laurentian Great Lakes

2022· article· en· W4206165069 on OpenAlexaff
Jason L. Fischer, Lucas R. Nathan, John T. Buszkiewicz, Julia E. Colm, David Drake, Mark R. DuFour, Patrick M. Kočovský, David Marson, Eric R. B. Smyth, Ryan Young, Kelly Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrofishingOccupancySampling (signal processing)FisheryGrass carpEnvironmental scienceEcologyStatisticsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sampling method decisions are critical for the effective monitoring and management of fisheries. Deploying the most effective sampling methodologies is particularly important when responding to new invasive species, where early response efforts have the best chances for eradication. In the Laurentian Great Lakes, the invasive Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella is sampled using boat electrofishing and the combination method of boat electrofishing within and around a trammel net enclosure. We conducted a field study to compare the effectiveness of the two methods. We used capture data for surrogate taxa (i.e., Common Carp Cyprinus carpio and buffalo Ictiobus spp.) to compare the two methods because few Grass Carp were collected during the study. The sampling methods were compared within an occupancy modeling framework using an information-criteria model selection approach to evaluate seven alternative models. The base model included sampling method, year, water temperature, and sampling effort as covariates in the detection submodel and assumed that occupancy probability was constant across sites. The other six models built on the base model by including site, water body type (i.e., lentic vs. lotic), and interaction covariates in the detection submodel. The top-performing model, built on the base model, accounted for the influence of water body type and assumed the exchangeability of site effects in the detection submodel. The results indicated that the detection probabilities for both taxa were higher for the combination method than for boat electrofishing, with a median estimated difference in detection probability between the two methods of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.04–0.22) for Common Carp and 0.18 (95% CI: 0.08–0.28) for buffalo. Given that the combination method was more effective for detecting the surrogate taxa, we expect the combination method may be preferable to only boat electrofishing for Grass Carp removal.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207