Parentage‐based tagging using mothers balances accuracy and cost for discriminating between natural and stocked recruitment for inland fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hatchery programmes are frequently used to supplement inland fisheries, yet achieving successful management outcomes often requires information on stocked versus naturally reproduced fish abundance. Parentage‐based tagging – genetically assigning offspring to their parents – has potential to be an effective approach for distinguishing stocked and naturally reproduced fish. However, several challenges may limit its application to inland fisheries, including genetic relatedness among populations that can affect identification accuracy and high costs of genotyping large broodstocks. Here, we demonstrate the efficacy of parentage‐based tagging based on broodmothers in the Lake Ontario Chinook Salmon fishery, which uses thousands of broodparents and has potential for substantial relatedness between stocked and naturally reproduced fish. Restricting parent sampling to broodmothers reduced costs by two‐thirds, was logistically pragmatic, and achieved >95% accuracy in distinguishing stocked from naturally reproduced salmon. Combined, these results highlight the potential wide applicability of parentage‐based tagging for assessing stocking programmes in inland waters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".