MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391874766 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2023-0192

Climate warming and projected loss of thermal habitat volume in lake populations of brook trout

2024· article· en· W4391874766 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mark S. Ridgway, D. Smith, Allan H. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsTroutHabitatEnvironmental scienceEcologyClimate changeSalvelinusFisheryHabitat destructionBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We applied an ensemble of climate warming models to an iconic protected landscape (Algonquin Park, Ontario) and the seasonal temperature profile model for lakes to assess changes in brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis) thermal habitat volume (THV) among lakes of different sizes in 30-year periods under two climate warming scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Bayesian beta regression models show that lake size (surface area) and morphometry (dynamic lake ratio) are important factors in THV loss. THV loss increases as a function of the dynamic lake ratio (transition from bowl-shaped to dish-shaped lakes). The magnitude of this effect depends on the lake size category and the RCP scenario. Small (<100 ha) and medium (100–500 ha) dish-shaped lakes are projected to have greater THV loss in 2071–2100 (60%–100% of brook trout THV under RCP 8.5; 40%–70% under RCP 4.5) than large lakes (>500 ha) of similar shape. Climate warming projections for the balance of this century, regardless of the RCP category, will result in the loss of brook trout THV in lakes that range widely in size and morphometry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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