THE IPOS FRAMEWORK: LINKING FISH SWIMMING PERFORMANCE IN ALTERED FLOWS FROM LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS TO RIVERS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The current understanding of the effects of turbulence on the swimming performance of fish is primarily derived from laboratory experiments under pressurised flow swim tunnels and open‐channel flow facilities. These studies have produced valuable information on the swimming mechanics and behaviour of fish in turbulent flow. However, laboratory studies have limited representation of the flows fish experience in nature. The flow structure in rivers is imparted primarily by the highly heterogeneous nonuniform bed, and the flow is generally much more complex than in laboratory experiments. The goal of the current work is to direct future laboratory and field studies to adopt a common framework that will shape the integration of both approaches. This article outlines four characteristics of turbulent flow, which we suggest should be evaluated when generalising results from fish turbulent studies in both the laboratory and the field. The framework is based on four turbulence characteristics that are summarised under the acronym IPOS: intensity, periodicity, orientation and scale. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it