MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255756327 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-58-6-1058

Biotic influences on habitat selection by young-of-year walleye (<i>Stizostedion vitreum</i>) in the demersal stage

2001· article· en· W4255756327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas C. Pratt, Michael G. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Industry and Aquatic Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStizostedionDemersal zoneHabitatSelection (genetic algorithm)FisheryPercidaeStage (stratigraphy)BiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of prey availability and predation risk on the distribution of young-of-year (YOY) walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) was investigated by comparing species associations with the relative abundance of YOY walleye across nine habitat types using an underwater visual assessment technique. During the early demersal period (mid-June to mid-July), YOY walleye were found primarily in areas of high macrophyte cover at 2–5 m depth. YOY walleye abundance was positively correlated with the abundance of prey fishes at this time. YOY walleye shifted to low-cover, shallow areas during the late demersal period (mid-July to late August), and the significant prey associations disappeared. Although the selected habitats are considered to have low predation risk, the distribution of YOY walleye was not related to our index of predator abundance in either time period. YOY walleye were not observed in three of the nine habitat types, suggesting that active habitat selection was occurring. High macrophyte cover and prey availability appear to be the major factors influencing habitat selection during the early demersal period. Although our results do not demonstrate the functional significance of the shift of YOY walleye into shallow water, we hypothesize that these habitats are selected as refugia from particular predators such as adult walleye.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.215
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.

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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFood Industry and Aquatic BiologyFrench-language works237,207