Rainbow trout passage at the Maple Hill fishway, Saugeen River, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passage efficiency of radiotagged rainbow trout at the Maple Hill fishway was 20%. Based on our professional opinion, coupled with radiotelemetric data and underwater videography, it is highly likely that the measured passage rate of 20% was a conservative underestimate of the efficiency of the Maple Hill fishway for passing rainbow trout. It is likely that the true passage rate (passage efficiency) was approximately 40 - 50% (i.e., double the measured rate). Upstream migration of rainbow trout in the spring is triggered by increases in river discharge as water temperatures increase above 6-7 ºC. River flows were exceptionally low in 2010 and this may have negatively affected fish passage at the Maple Hill dam. April 2010 discharge in the Saugeen River was at summer low flow levels, and it is likely that upstream passage at the Maple Hill fishway would be greater under more typical spring flow conditions.Rainbow trout spent approximately four (4) days locating and using the fishway. Much of this time was spent "upstream" from the fishway in the dam tailrace. The Maple Hill fishway is located near the turbine outflow where fish attraction is greatest; however, some fish entered and remained in the dam spillway for several days. Since the majority of the Saugeen River flow at Maple Hill dam does not pass over the dam structure, but rather is passed through the turbines, it is likely that outflow from the turbines facilitates conditions that attract fish to the fishway entrance under current conditions. High discharge events over the Maple Hill dam during the spring would result in increased fish passage if a second fishway were constructed near the dam with its entrance as close to the dam face as possible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".