Developing a predictive model to identify Sea Lamprey parasitism on Lake Trout using biologgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus remain problematic for Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush restoration in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Fisheries assessments would benefit from knowledge of spatial–temporal patterns of Sea Lamprey parasitism on Lake Trout; however, such patterns are challenging to estimate from wounding rates on caught Lake Trout. Electronic tags have been used to identify distinct fish behaviors (e.g., foraging or spawning) using measurements of acceleration or heart rate. We hypothesized that Sea Lamprey attachment would elicit changes in the heart rate and swimming behavior of Lake Trout. Here, we determined whether tagging devices could record these changes and whether we could accurately predict lamprey attachment on Lake Trout using these recordings. Methods Adult Lake Trout (n = 34) were implanted with acceleration and heart rate tags and then were subjected to Sea Lamprey parasitism within a laboratory setting. Approximately 70 different acceleration and heart rate metrics were collected and tried as predictors of lamprey attachment. The top variables were used to train random forest models and then tried on test data sets. The accuracy of these models was then validated using a jackknife approach. Result Metrics related to body orientation and heart rate were identified as the best predictors of Sea Lamprey attachment. The best models predicted lamprey attachments with high accuracy; however, individual-level jackknife tests resulted in less accurate cross-individual prediction and regularly predicted false negatives. These findings may be related to individual variance in the Lake Trout response to attachment, but there was evidence that the shifting of tags after implantation impacted predictive performance, which could be remedied with adjustments during implantation. Conclusions Our study highlights the potential to use tagging devices for quantifying Sea Lamprey attachments on Lake Trout in the wild. Further development appears necessary; however, once improved, these predictive models have the potential to generate field-based estimates of Sea Lamprey attack rates on Lake Trout.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".