Orientation of rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) to multiple patches of linearly polarized light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orientation responses of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to two linearly polarized light patches were examined under controlled laboratory conditions. Fish were trained to swim the length of the training tank under a polarized light field created by two linearly polarized stimuli that were oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the length of the tank. Trained fish were released in a circular tank and their angular responses were recorded. For each testing paradigm, the E-vector (electric vector) orientation of one of the two linearly polarized light patches was varied by 15° between 0° and 90°. Each fish was therefore tested in seven different paradigms in which the two E-vector orientations differed by 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°. Rainbow trout oriented in a bimodal distribution when the two E-vector orientations differed by 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, and 90°. These results suggest that rainbow trout perceived the two stimuli as being the same when the two E-vector orientations differed by 45° or less. Conversely, rainbow trout did not significantly orient when the two E-vector orientations differed by 60° and 75°. Rainbow trout may be able to discriminate two E-vector orientations that differ between 60° and 75°, and therefore they do not significantly orient, since they perceive two distinct E-vectors to orient to instead of one. When rainbow trout were exposed to a depolarized light field, they did not exhibit significant orientation subsequent to the E-vector cue.
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".