Data from: Population and individual identification of Coho Salmon in British Columbia through parentage-based tagging and genetic stock identification: an alternative to coded-wire tags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parentage-based tagging (PBT) and genetic stock identification (GSI) were used to identify individual coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to specific populations and brood years. In total, 20 242 individuals from 117 populations were genotyped at 304 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) via direct sequencing of amplicons. Coho salmon from 15 populations were assigned via parentage analysis that required the genotypes of both parents. The overall accuracy of assignment for 1939 coho salmon to the correct population was 100%, and to correct brood year within population was also 100%. Inclusion of individuals requiring only a single parental genotype for identification resulted in assignments of 2101 individuals, with an accuracy of 99.95% (2000–2001) to population and 100.0% to age. With 23 regions defined by the coded-wire tag (CWT) program, and individuals displaying an assignment probability <0.85 excluded from the analysis, mean regional assignment accuracy of individuals via GSI was 98.4% over all 23 regions. A PBT–GSI or PBT system of identification will provide an alternate method of identification in the assessment and management of Canadian-origin coho salmon relative to the existing CWT program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".