The Effects of Low-Speed Swimming following Exhaustive Exercise on Metabolic Recovery and Swimming Performance in Brook Trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were conducted to determine whether low-speed swimming during recovery from exhaustive exercise improved both metabolic recovery and performance during a swimming challenge. For these experiments, brook trout were allowed to recover from exhaustive exercise for 2 h while swimming at 0, 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 body length (BL) s(-1) or allowed to recover from exhaustive exercise for 1, 2, or 3 h while swimming at 1.0 BL s(-1). At the appropriate interval, either (i) muscle and blood samples were removed from the fish or (ii) fish were assessed for performance (i.e., fatigue time) during a fixed-interval swimming test. Low-speed swimming during recovery from exhaustive exercise resulted in significantly longer fatigue times compared with fish recovering in still water (i.e., 0 BL s(-1)). However, swimming during recovery did not expedite recovery of muscle lactate or blood variables (e.g., lactate, osmolarity, glucose). These observations suggest that metabolic recovery and subsequent swimming performance may not be directly linked and that other factors play a role in swimming recovery in brook trout.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".