MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892165246 · doi:10.5061/dryad.nt18c

Data from: Size-based hydroacoustic measures of within-season fish abundance in a boreal freshwater ecosystem

2015· dataset· en· W6892165246 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)BorealFish <Actinopterygii>FishingFreshwater fishProductivityRelative species abundanceEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eleven sequential size-based hydroacoustic surveys conducted with a 200 kHz split-beam transducer during the summers of 2011 and 2012 were used to quantify seasonal declines in fish abundance in a boreal reservoir in Manitoba, Canada. Fish densities were sufficiently low to enable single target resolution and tracking. Target strengths converted to log2-based size-classes indicated that smaller fish were consistently more abundant than larger fish by a factor of approximately 3 for each halving of length. For all size classes, in both years, abundance (natural log) declined linearly over the summer at rates that varied from -0.067.day-1 for the smallest fish to -0.016.day-1 for the largest (R2 = 0.24–0.97). Inter-annual comparisons of size-based abundance suggested that for larger fish (>16 cm), mean winter decline rates were an order of magnitude lower (-0.001.day-1) and overall survival higher (71%) than in the main summer fishing season (mean loss rate -0.038.day-1; survival 33%). We conclude that size-based acoustic survey methods have the potential to assess within-season fish abundance dynamics, and may prove useful in long-term monitoring of productivity and hence management of boreal aquatic ecosystems.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)→French-language works237,207→