MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892242782 · doi:10.5066/p1s9xbt8

Round goby detection by scuba divers’ visual assessments and environmental DNA in the Great Lakes, 2022

2025· dataset· en· W6892242782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneGobyScuba divingEnvironmental DNARound gobyWater qualityFish <Actinopterygii>Benthos

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset is associated with an examination of environmental DNA (eDNA) from the invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in parallel with visual surveys of fish count and size conducted by scuba divers in four Great Lakes: Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. Round goby inhabits benthic areas, and it is known to have direct contact with the bottom substrate as it feeds on dreissenid mussels. Considering this, eDNA samples were derived from multiple substrates: lake bottom water, sediment, and benthic algae; each manually collected by scuba divers from 3 or 6-meter depths and eight distinct transects. eDNA samples were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and results are expressed as DNA Copy Numbers (CN) per 1 mL of water or per 1 gram of wet weight of sediment or benthic algae. All eDNA samples for this dataset were collected alongside a larger body of work conducted in 2022 (https://doi.org/10.5066/P13JDUMH) and relate to multiple years of work at these stations that includes: algal and dreissenid mussel biomass, water quality assessments, and diver observations of dreissenid mussels, round gobies, benthic substrate, and benthic algal cover. We refer to the benthic algae also as the ‘Cladophora community’ and ‘submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)’ in other published project data, which were collected starting in 2018 (Great Lakes Science Center, 2018).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentFrench-language works237,207