Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush is native to the Great Lakes and has long supported valuable commercial and sport fisheries in those lakes. In the 1970's and 80's, scientific evidence of successful reproduction by native or stocked lake trout populations in Lake Huron was scant. Suspected sources of lake trout, early life history mortality were: (1) Failure to hatch of fertilized lake trout eggs, deposited by adults on nearshore spawning grounds, and (2) Failure of fertilized lake trout eggs and recently-hatched lake trout fry to survive exposure to physical and environmental conditions within interstitial spaces of the rock-rubble on known lake trout spawning grounds in nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Huron, prior to their emergence (swim-up). To address these two suspected sources of early life mortality, scientific studies were conducted by Dr. Bruce Manny, Research Fishery Biologist, and others at the US Geological Survey's Great Lake Science Center in Ann Arbor, MI, at one of the Center's field stations, the Hammond Bay Biological Station on Northeastern Lake Huron, and from research boats deployed on several known lake trout spawning grounds in Lakes Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior, during spawning season and subsequent egg incubation, egg hatch, and larval incubation, from 1988 to 1992. The Lake Trout Swim-up data is comprised of unpublished scientific data from studies conducted with lake trout eggs and fry in the laboratory and in the field. The data set consists of 18 tables extracted from a relaitonal database related to this study of Lake Trout mortality and deformities in Michigan lakes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".