MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412834409 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2024-0384

Dispersal of stream salmonids from nests and stocking sites: patterns, variability, and sampling bias

2025· article· en· W4412834409 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
James W. A. Grant, Laura K. Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStockingBiological dispersalEcologySampling (signal processing)FisheryPiscivoreSampling biasGeographyBiologyMark and recapturePredationPredatorStatisticsPopulationDemographyMathematicsSample size determination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To reconcile divergent views about the direction and distance that salmonids disperse from nests or release sites, we conducted a systematic search and synthesis of existing data that included 154 data points from 58 papers. After correcting for a sampling bias in the downstream direction, 56.6% of fish dispersed downstream, significantly greater than 50%, but much less than expected. The best generalized linear mixed model explaining the percentage of fish moving downstream included a positive effect of the percentage of sampling effort downstream, a negative effect of body size, and differences among species; brown trout ( Salmo trutta) tended to disperse upstream more than other species. Dispersal distance increased with body size; median dispersal distances for age 0+ and older fish were 167 and 908 m, respectively, implying much greater mobility than expected. As predicted, median dispersal distance was greater downstream (715 m) than upstream (602 m). Our analyses indicated that many of our perceptions about salmonid dispersal are based on biased sampling—too much effort that is too close to, and downstream of, the release site.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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