MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is peak postprandial oxygen consumption positively related to growth rate and resting oxygen consumption in a sedentary catfish <i>Silurus meridionalis</i>?

2008· article· en· W2071632153 on OpenAlexaff
Shi‐Jian Fu, Zhonghong Cao, Jingyue Peng, Y. X. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostprandialSpecific dynamic actionBiologyCatfishMealBasal metabolic rateVO2 maxOxygenEndocrinologyAnimal scienceInternal medicineFood scienceInsulinFisheryMedicineFish <Actinopterygii>Heart rateChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The resting oxygen consumption , postprandial and post‐exercise peak oxygen consumption of 137 juvenile southern catfish Silurus meridionalis, weighing 18·5 ± 0·8 g (mean ±s.d.), were measured at 25° C to determine whether is positively related to postprandial and post‐exercise in sedentary S. meridionalis. In addition, postprandial metabolic response [i.e. the specific dynamic action (SDA)] after a satiating meal and the growth performance as a consequence of a 3 week feeding‐growth trail were measured in 40 S. meridionalis, weighing 14·3 ± 0·2 g, at 25° C to determine whether postprandial is positively related to growth rate. Postprandial was positively correlated with , while post‐exercise was not. Both postprandial and post‐exercise were positively correlated with factorial and absolute scope. There was no significant correlation between the growth rate and postprandial in S. meridionalis. It suggested that as a sit‐and‐wait forager with low , low post‐exercise and high postprandial , the expenditure of energy for maintenance in S. meridionalis may be more closely related to digestive processes than locomotor activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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