MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292013792 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2022-0016

A tale of two fishes: depth preference of migrating Atlantic salmon smolt and predatory brown trout in a Norwegian lake

2022· article· en· W4292013792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ainslie Nash, Knut Wiik Vollset, Erlend M. Hanssen, Saron Berhe, Anne Gro Vea Salvanes, Trond Einar Isaksen, B. T. Barlaup, Robert J. Lennox

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsSalmoBrown troutFisheryPredationTroutPredatorBiologySalmonidaeDiel vertical migrationEnvironmental scienceEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the predator–prey interactions during this transitional migration, we tracked 22 Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) smolts and their most prevalent predator, brown trout ( Salmo trutta) ( N = 21), and recorded their depth use in a basin of Lake Evanger, Norway, with acoustic telemetry during May 2020. Both salmon smolts (mean ± SD: 3.8 ± 3.3 m) and trout (2.9 ± 1.7 m) were distributed relatively shallow in the lake despite depths in the area largely exceeding 30 m. Both species were deeper at midday and smolts tended to be deeper in the water earlier in the migration, overlapping less with trout early in May, but as daily daylight increased and water temperature warmed vertical distribution of smolts and trout increasingly overlapped. Based on depth traces from the tags, only seven were detected at the end of the lake and confirmed to make it through. Despite the behaviour of the salmon smolts mostly matching with predictions of the risk allocation hypothesis, it seems a large share of the tagged smolts succumbed to predation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→