MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using maximum heart rate as a rapid screening tool to determine optimum temperature for aerobic scope in Pacific salmon <i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.

2012· article· en· W1990689203 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew T. Casselman, Katja Anttila, Anthony P. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOncorhynchusFisheryScope (computer science)Chinook windFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mean ±s.e. optimum temperature (T(opt)) for aerobic scope in juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch was determined to be 17·0 ± 0·7° C. The repeated measures protocol took 3 weeks to complete the T(opt) determination using 12 fish tested at five temperatures separated by 2° C increments. This experiment also demonstrated that the T(opt) was associated with maximum heart rate (f(H)) failing to maintain a Q(10) -related increase with temperature. When maximum f(H) was produced in anaesthetized fish with pharmacological stimulation and f(H) measured from electrocardiogram recordings during acute warming, the Arrhenius break temperature (ABT) for Q(10) discontinuities in maximum f(H) (mean ±s.e. = 17·1 ± 0·5° C for 15 ppm clove oil and 16·5 ± 0·2° C for 50 ppm MS-222) was statistically indistinguishable from the T(opt) measured using aerobic scope. Such a determination took only 3 days rather than 3 weeks. Therefore, it is proposed that determining ABT for discontinuities in maximum f(H) in anaesthetized fish presents itself as a valuable, high-throughput screening tool to assess T(opt) in fishes, a metric that has become recognized as being extremely valuable in fish biology and fisheries management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations125
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207