MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231783820 · doi:10.47886/9781934874462.ch5

Muskellunge Management: Fifty Years of Cooperation Among Anglers, Scientists, and Fisheries Biologists

2017· book-chapter· en· W4231783820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryGeographyChristian ministryFishingFisheries managementGeorgianBayPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>ArchaeologyBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

&lt;em&gt;Abstract&lt;/em&gt;.—Muskies Canada Inc. (MCI) has represented Muskellunge &lt;em&gt;Esox masquinongy &lt;/em&gt;anglers since 1978, advocating for the conservation and effective management of Muskellunge populations. A core initiative of MCI, since its inception, has been the voluntary Angler Log Program (ALP), which collects data on MCI-member Muskellunge angling effort and catch. These data are shared with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the intent of contributing to the management of Muskellunge fisheries in Ontario. This paper examines the data provided by MCI members of the six water bodies with the highest representation in the ALP from 1995 to 2015—Pigeon Lake, Rideau River, Lake St. Clair, Georgian Bay, St. Lawrence River, and Ottawa River. Mean length, catch per unit effort, and proportional size are examined to determine (1) if a response to large-scale changes in fish abundance (viral hemorrhagic septicemia-related die-offs) can be detected in the data, and (2) if data from the ALP relate to the broad management objectives for the fishery. While the ALP is subject to some sources of bias, our assessment suggests that there is considerable potential for direct use of the data in setting and measuring fishery, and Muskellunge population, objectives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooksSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207