Cyclic feeding and subsequent compensatory growth do not significantly impact standard metabolic rate or critical swimming speed in rainbow trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard metabolic rate (Rs) and critical swimming speed (Ucrit) were used to assess the aspects of physiological status (stamina) of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fish were fed either 1·5% body mass daily, 1·5% body mass cyclically (3 weeks of food deprivation followed by 3 weeks of refeeding), a ration based on Stauffer’s formula (a maximum temperature‐specific ration level) daily or on Stauffer’s ration cyclically for 18 weeks. It was hypothesized that if cyclic feeding had no impact on the status of the fish, Rs and Ucrit would not cycle with the feeding regime. This hypothesis was supported. No significant difference was found between the mean mass and the fork length of the four groups at the end of the experiment (P > 0·05). Feeding had no effect on changes in Rs among the four groups, which were significantly different throughout the experiment (P≤ 0·05). No significant difference in Ucrit was found (P > 0·05) until at week 12 between groups fed 1·5% body mass ration cyclically and Stauffer’s ration daily (P≤ 0·05). For groups fed a 1·5% body mass ration cyclically and daily, significant differences occurred at week 15 (P≤ 0·05) but no significant difference was found by week 18 (P > 0·05), suggesting that cyclic feeding does not affect the aspects of physiological status (stamina) of the fish.
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".