MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408644688 · doi:10.1111/faf.12888

Designing Sortable Guilds for Multispecies Selective Fish Passage

2025· article· en· W4408644688 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Benoit, Daniel P. Zielinski, Reid G. Swanson, Donald A. Jackson, Robert L. McLaughlin, Theodore Castro‐Santos, R. Andrew Goodwin, Thomas C. Pratt, Andrew M. Muir

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The importance of connectivity for freshwater organisms is widely recognised, yet in‐stream barriers associated with population declines and increased risk of extinction remain globally ubiquitous. Despite their negative consequences, these barriers can protect aquatic communities by limiting the spread of invasive species, leading to conflicting management goals in some regions. Selective fish passage is a solution for the conflicting goals of passing native, desirable species while restricting the spread of invasives. Approaches that can target groups of species sharing similar attributes (i.e. guilds) are likely to be more efficient than those that target species individually, particularly in taxonomically diverse systems. We explored the guild structure of 220 Great Lakes freshwater fishes based on morphological, phenological, physiological and behavioural attributes associated with passage and movement. We identified five distinct guilds as well as the attributes most important for defining these groupings: maximum total length, trophic level, relative eye size, spawning temperature, spawning season, presence/absence of ampullary electroreceptors and the presence/absence of hearing specialisations. The approaches outlined in this work can be generalised to enhance selective fish passage in aquatic ecosystems worldwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207