FIELD EXAMINATION OF PERCEPTUAL AND ENERGETIC BASES FOR INTERMITTENT LOCOMOTION BY RECENTLY-EMERGED BROOK CHARR IN STILL-WATER POOLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study describes the intermittent locomotion exhibited by recently-emerged brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) foraging in still-water pools along the banks of streams, and examines perceptual and energetic bases for it. Distributions of hover (pause) and move durations for brook charr foraging in the field were highly variable among individuals. On average, charr exhibiting short hover durations exhibited long move durations, and vice versa. Our study supported the hypothesis that intermittent locomotion was associated with the perceptual challenges of detecting and capturing prey. When individuals switched between hovering and moving, they altered where they directed foraging attempts within the water column and, for benthic and midwater attempts, they experienced changes in the probability of capturing potential prey. Our study did not support alternative, energetic hypotheses suggesting that intermittent locomotion improves endurance or decreases energetic expenditures. A forcedswimming experiment in the field demonstrated that individual charr were easily capable of exercise periods 14 times longer than the move duration typically exhibited while foraging, and swimming speeds while moving were below the maximum sustainable speed reported for this species and life stage. In addition, video recordings revealed that swimming charr did not exhibit the burst-coast form of intermittent locomotion that can reduce the energetic cost of movement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".