Pacific Salmon: Ecology and Management of Western Alaska’s Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.—Most studies addressing relationships between salmonids, their freshwater habitats, and natural and anthropogenic influences have focused on relatively small areas and short time periods. The limits of knowledge gained at finer spatiotemporal scales have become obvious in attempts to cope with variable and declining abundances of salmon and trout across entire regions. Aggregating fine-scale information from disparate sources does not offer decision makers the means to solve these problems. The Salmon Research and Restoration Plan for the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative (AYK-SSI) recognizes the need for approaches to characterize determinants of salmon population performance at broader scales. Here we discuss data and modeling tools that have been applied in western Oregon to understand how landscape features and processes may influence salmonids in freshwater. The modeling tools are intended to characterize landscape features and processes (e.g., delivery and routing of wood, sediment, and water) and relate these to fish habitat or abundance. Models that are contributing to salmon conservation in Oregon include: (1) expert-opinion models characterizing habitat conditions, watershed conditions, and habitat potential; (2) statistical models characterizing spatial patterns in and relationships among fish, habitat, and landscape features; and (3) simulation models that propagate disturbances into and through streams and predict effects on fish and habitat across a channel network. The modeling tools vary in many aspects, including input data (probability samples vs. census, reach vs. watershed, and field vs. remote sensing), analytical sophistication, and empirical foundation, and so can accommodate a range of situations. In areas with a history of salmon-related research and monitoring in freshwater, models in the three classes may be developed simultaneously. In areas with less available information, expert-opinion models may be developed first to organize existing knowledge and to generate hypotheses that can guide data collection for statistical and simulation models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".