Recovery potential modelling of Purple Wartyback (Cyclonaias tuberculata) in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed Purple Wartyback (PWB, Cyclonaias tuberculata) as Threatened in Canada. Here population modelling is presented to assess the impacts of harm, determine abundance and habitat recovery targets, and conduct long-term projections of population recovery in support of a recovery potential assessment (RPA). The model incorporated parameter uncertainty, environmental stochasticity, and density-dependence into population projections. The analysis demonstrated that PWB populations were most sensitive to perturbations to adult survival under most circumstances. As population growth rate (λ) increased the sensitivity of juvenile survival to perturbation increased and surpassed adult survival sensitivity when λ > 1.2. Estimates of the level of harm that would reduce population growth rate to 1 were estimated for populations in the Sydenham and Thames rivers. Population viability analysis was used to identify potential recovery targets. Demographic sustainability, (i.e., a self-sustaining population over 250 years) can be achieved with population sizes of ~2,800 (CI: 1,900–4,000) adults. It was estimated that populations of minimum viable population (MVP) size would require 623.3 m2 (CI: 251.9–1,396.9) and 2,900 m2 (CI: 301.5–17,166.3) in the Sydenham and Thames rivers respectively. Therefore, there is sufficient habitat to support PWB populations in both systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".