Optimal swimming speeds reflect preferred swimming speeds of brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill, 1874)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several measures have been developed to quantify swimming performance to understand various aspects of ecology and behaviour, as well as to help design functional applications for fishways and aquaculture. One of those measures, the optimal swimming speed, is the speed at which the cost of transport (COT) is minimal, where COT is defined as the cost of moving unit mass over unit distance. The experimental protocol to determine the optimal swimming speed involves forced-swimming in a flume or respirometer. In this study, a 4.5-m-long tilted raceway with gradually increasing upstream water speed is used to determine a novel, behaviourally based swimming parameter: the preferred swimming speed. The optimal swimming speed and the preferred swimming speed of brook charr were determined and a comparison of the two reveals that the optimal swimming speed (25.9 ± 4.5 cm s⁻¹ or 1.02 ± 0.47 bl s⁻¹) reflected the preferred swimming speed (between 20 cm s⁻¹ or 0.78 ± 0.02 bl s⁻¹ and 25 cm s⁻¹ or 0.95 ± 0.03 bl s⁻¹). The preferred swimming speed can be advantageous for the determination of swimming speeds for the use in aquaculture studies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".