MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133077752

Fish-habitat interactions in a small freshwater lake and the evaluation of a visual census sampling method for the quantification of vertical, littoral zone habitat structure and fish distribution

2003· dissertation· W7133077752 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julianne Susan Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLittoral zoneHabitatSampling (signal processing)Fish habitatCensusFish <Actinopterygii>Sampling designHydrology (agriculture)Distribution (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A visual census method was developed to vertically quantify habitat structure and fish distribution in freshwater lake littoral zones. In the Poorhouse Lake study, several sites were repeatedly sampled to evaluate the fish-habitat interactions when quantified vertically. A temporal gradient explained the most variation in the species data, but a secondary vertical habitat gradient also influenced fish distribution. In the Lake Survey study, several lakes were sampled to test the broader applicability of the vertical visual census method and to compare the observations obtained using it to those obtained using a boat sampling method. Substantial among-observer variability was found using the qualitative boat sampling method. Habitat type influenced among-observer and among-method consistency of habitat characterization. The suitability of the vertical visual census technique can be dependent on the trade-off between the increased sampling effort required and the more detailed, accurate information it can yield.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→