The Effects of Biotelemetry Transmitter Presence and Attachment Procedures on Fish Physiology and Behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biotelemetry—the process of conveying data from a transmitter-attached animal to a data collection site—has received increasing awareness from fisheries researchers. Prior to biotelemetry data collection, it is imperative that researchers are aware of and understand the possible effects that transmitter presence and attachment procedures may have on 'normal' fish behavior and physiology. To allow successful transmitter attachment, numerous methods to anesthetize the study fish, with varied impact and effectiveness, may be employed. Following anesthetization, three standard methods of transmitter attachment have been developed—external attachment, intragastric insertion, and surgical implantation. Although each method has advantages and disadvantages, their success largely depends on factors such as the species, environment, fish and transmitter size, and duration of the telemetry study. Additionally, each method of attachment can affect experimental fish physiology and behavior in varying ways. After describing each of the transmitter attachment procedures, we review the effects of transmitter presence and attachment procedure on fish physiology and behavior, with special focus on implications to aquaculture and fisheries related studies. Keywords: biotelemetrytransmitter effectstransmitter attachmentsurgical procedureanesthesiaphysiologybehavior.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it