MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210305256 · doi:10.3996/jfwm-21-090

An Evaluation of Goldeye Life History Characteristics in Two Kansas Reservoirs

2022· article· en· W4210305256 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brett T. Miller, Ernesto Flores García, D. Scott Waters, Ben C. Neely

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Range (aeronautics)PopulationEcologyLake ecosystemGeographyDrainage basinLife historyRelative species abundanceStructural basinFish <Actinopterygii>FecundityFisheryBiologyEnvironmental scienceDemographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Goldeye Hiodon alosoides are native through much of Canada and the Mississippi River drainage in the United States. Life history characteristics have been described for several commercially important populations in northern portions of their range, but there is a paucity of information available for more southernly populations. Milford and Lovewell Reservoirs are in the Kansas River basin and harbor the only two lentic Goldeye populations in Kansas. Further, anecdotal observations suggest declining population abundance. We sought to examine temporal trends in relative abundance and describe current size structure, body condition, and population dynamics of these two remnant populations. Both populations had decreasing relative abundance over the previous 24-y period, although decreases in the Lovewell population were most profound. In Milford Reservoir, the median total length of sampled Goldeye was 268 mm (minimum = 235 mm; maximum = 431 mm). The estimated maximum observed age for Goldeye was 8; however, age-1 Goldeye were the most abundant year-class that we collected, accounting for 80% of sampled fish. We fit a von Bertalanffy growth model to back-calculated length at annulus formation with parameter estimates of L∞ = 402 mm, K = 0.93, and t0 = 0.29. We collected two individuals at Lovewell Reservoir; therefore, no analyses were conducted. Overall, this study provides cursory knowledge of two remnant Goldeye populations in Kansas. These results can be applied to promote better understanding of their ecological role in these reservoirs and other midwestern impoundments with remnant populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207