MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7119534898 · doi:10.5061/dryad.g1jwstr47

Data from: Differential impacts of human land use on native and non-native fish in mountain watersheds

2025· dataset· en· W7119534898 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Angus J. Lothian, Ben Kissinger, Andrew Paul, Donovan A. Bell, John R. Post

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersForest Resource Improvement Association of AlbertaMitacs
KeywordsTroutOccupancyHabitatEcosystemRainbow troutLand useIntroduced speciesBrown trout

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human activities increasingly affect cold-water specialists in mountain ecosystems, both through direct alteration of freshwater habitat and through indirect effects mediated by terrestrial ecosystem change. Using presence/absence data for three native and three non-native trout species in the Alberta Rocky Mountains, Canada, we model the change in occupancy probability across 20 years (2001 to 2020) in 74 watersheds and relate occupancy with habitat variables (i.e., elevation, tree coverage, and density of linear features). Native bull trout showed significant declines in HUC10 occupancy (-0.16 % year-1) while non-native trout showed stability. Native trout favoured areas of higher elevation and greater tree coverage in direct contrast to non-native trout. Bull trout were significantly negatively impacted by the density of linear features. Our analysis suggests that regulation of anthropogenic activities and restoration of the terrestrial environment are required to conserve native trout in sensitive mountain environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→