The Recovery of Locomotory Activity following Exhaustive Exercise in Juvenile Rainbow Trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the recovery of locomotory activity in exhausted juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, approximately 6-10-cm fork length) in response to two conditions: (1) direct transfer to a range of velocities (0-15 cm s(-1)) in a swim flume (forced swimming) and (2) direct transfer to a pool downstream of a swim channel where a choice of velocities was presented: 2-3 cm s(-1) in the lower half of the pool, a range of velocities from 7 to 40 cm s(-1) in the upper half the pool near the channel entrance, and a velocity of 57 cm s(-1) in a swim channel emptying into the pool (volitional swimming). Exhausted trout showed a pronounced delay in the recovery of normal locomotory activity. With forced swimming, the time required to resume swimming was inversely proportional to water velocity. At 15 cm s(-1), almost all exhausted fish recovered immediately, whereas it took about 1 h for recovery at a current of 5 cm s(-1). In contrast, nonexhausted fish responded to imposed velocity with immediate rheotactic responses (orientation and station holding) at all test velocities. In voluntary swim trials, exhausted trout showed a marked preference for holding station in current in the downstream pool (approximately 11 cm s(-1)) but took, on average, 2 h longer than nonexhausted fish to make transits in the swim channel. Moreover, their ground speed in the swim channel was significantly slower. We conclude that swimming performance is impaired for at least 6 h by exhaustive exercise. Maladaptive behaviors during this time include a preference for current near the surface over cover and a reduced capacity for burst activity, both of which would translate into greater predation risk and reduced ability to forage.
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".