Eels at the Edge: Science, Status, and Conservation Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.—Additional upstream eel Anguilla rostrata passage is planned at the Moses- Saunders Power Dam, Massena, New York, and has recently been implemented at the Beauharnois Power Dam, Montreal, Quebec, on the St. Lawrence River. Mark– recapture studies were conducted to determine the distance upstream of the dams that eel ladder exits should be located to minimize turbine entrainment. In 2001, 9,822 finclipped eels were released in equal proportions at 0 m, 90 m, and 1,600 m upstream on the west side of the Beauharnois Power Dam. Return rates to the tailwater were 4.5%, 5.0%, and 3.2%, respectively. In 2002, 16,697 fin-clipped eels were released at the same distances on the east side of the dam. Return rates were 12.0%, 4.2% and 1.1%, respectively. In 2001, 4,400 PIT-tagged eels were released at six locations upstream of the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. Eels released further than 270 m upstream of the dam exhibited a return rate of less than 7%, while those released closer than 270 m had a substantially higher return rate, approximately 50%. Even though the dams are very similar in size and hydraulic capacity, return rates of eels released close to the two dams were substantially different, approximately 50% for the Moses-Saunders Power Dam versus 4.5% (west side) and 12.0% (east side) for the Beauharnois Power Dam. These studies indicate that the siting of an eel ladder exit to minimize entrainment is specific to each dam.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".