DISTRIBUTION OF BIGSCALE LOGPERCH, PERCINA MACROLEPIDA (PERCIDAE), IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Percina macrolepida has previously been reported from 5 localities in the western portion of the Arkansas River basin in Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, presumably as a result of introductions. Examination of museum specimens and field sampling in 2000–2001 revealed that P. macrolepida is more widely distributed in the Arkansas River drainage than previously known. We documented the first records of P. macrolepida from the Arkansas River in Arkansas, where it occurs in large numbers throughout the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. In the Arkansas portion of the Arkansas River, P. macrolepida occurred only in habitats in the main channel, often at the same localities as the morphologically similar P. caprodes. Percina caprodes was the only logperch species found in Arkansas River tributaries or reservoirs on tributaries in Arkansas. Arkansas River basin records for P. macrolepida in Oklahoma are currently known only from the Canadian River drainage, but additional sampling from the Arkansas River main channel in that state could produce new records for this species. It might not be possible to determine whether P. macrolepida is native or introduced in the Arkansas River basin, but it has likely increased in numbers in the Arkansas River in recent decades as a result of the construction of the navigation system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".