MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiorespiratory status of triploid brown trout during swimming at two acclimation temperatures

2002· article· en· W2003188967 on OpenAlexaff
Jordi Altimiras, M. Axelsoon, Guy Claireaux, Christel Lefrançois, Carole Mercier, Anthony P. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown troutBiologyHeart rateSalmoAnimal scienceCardiorespiratory fitnessTroutAcclimatizationBasal metabolic rateVentilation (architecture)Internal medicineEndocrinologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyBlood pressureFisheryPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At 14° C, standard metabolic rate (75·1 mg O 2 h −1 kg −1 ), routine metabolic rate (108.8 mg O 2 h −1 kg −1 ), active metabolic rate ( c . 380 mg O 2 h −1 kg −1 ), critical swimming speed (U crit 1·7 BL s −1 ), heart rate 47 min −1 ), dorsal aortic pressure (3·2 kPa) and ventilation frequency (63 min −1 ) for triploid brown trout Salmo trutta were within the ranges reported for diploid brown trout and other salmonids at the same temperature. During prolonged swimming ( c . 80% U crit ), cardiac output increased by 2·3‐fold due to increases in heart rate (1·8‐fold) and stroke volume (1·2‐fold). At 18° C, although standard and routine metabolic rates, as well as resting heart rate and ventilation frequency increased significantly, active metabolic rate and certain cardiorespiratory variables during exercise did not differ from those values for fish acclimated to 14° C. As a result, factorial metabolic scope was reduced (2·93‐fold at 18° C v . 5·13‐fold at 14° C). Therefore, it is concluded that cardiorespiratory performance in triploid brown trout was not unusual at 18° C, but that reduced factorial metabolic scope may be a contributing factor to the mortality observed in triploid brown trout at temperatures near 18° C.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations77
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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