Implementing recovery strategies for mussel species at risk in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of host fishes, elucidation of population dynamics, and determination of potential sites for reintroduction and augmentation of Species at Risk (SAR) unionid mussels are important goals of current recovery strategies. Host fishes were identified or confirmed for 'Epioblasma torulosa rangiana, Epioblasma triquetra, Lampsilis fasciola, Obovaria subrotunda, Ptychobranchus fasciolaris' and 'Villosa fablis'. Importantly, the absence of a host fish for 'E. t. rangiana' may help to explain its SAR status. Results indicated that there are systematic relationships among mussels and their host fish, that juvenile production rates differ among host fishes, and that there are site specific differences in the abundance estimates (range: 3-10974 individuals), sex ratios, proportion of gravid females (10-40%), and growth rates (0.2-0.4 cm/year) for the mussel SAR in the Sydenham River. This information is vital for understanding the biology of these organisms and in facilitating their recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".