Evaluating the viability of the use of T-bar and radiotelemetry tags on prespawn Arctic Lampreys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Arctic Lampreys Lethenteron camtschaticum are harvested by subsistence and commercial fisheries in the Yukon–Kuskokwim River region of Alaska; however, baseline population data are deficient. For mark–recapture and telemetry studies to be effectively implemented to assess Arctic Lamprey abundance, migratory and dispersal patterns, and spawning locations, tags must not impact fish survival, physiology, or behavior. Methods For this laboratory evaluation, we examined survival, tag retention, swim endurance at short-term (1 day posttreatment) and long-term (43 days [~6 weeks] posttreatment) intervals, and incision healing for T-bar-tagged and radio-tagged prespawn Yukon River Arctic Lampreys (N = 216). Six treatment groups were evaluated: control; sham surgery; external T-bar anchor tag; and small (0.30 g; 0.1–0.4% tag burden [ratio of tag weight to fish body weight]), medium (0.57 g; 0.2–0.8% tag burden), and large (1.50 g; 0.6–1.9% tag burden) internal dummy radio transmitter tags. Result Although all lampreys survived tagging and surgical procedures through the first 4 weeks of the experiment, a higher tag burden was associated with an increased mortality hazard up to 35 weeks postsurgery. Over the 14-week experimental period, one T-bar tag and one small radio tag were shed by lampreys. Although treatment was not a significant predictor of swim endurance, a higher tag burden led to reductions in swim endurance at 1 day posttreatment but not at 43 days posttreatment. Healing did not differ among surgical treatment groups, but persistent inflammation was observed at incision sites and skin erosion was observed at antenna protrusion locations. Conclusion These results indicate that T-bar anchor tags and internal radio tags are acceptable for Arctic Lamprey tagging studies if the radio tag burden is ≤1.3% for short-term (≤14-week) studies and ≤0.5% for long-term (≥14-week) studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".