MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108512160 · doi:10.1139/z00-097

Swimming performance of walleye (<i>Stizostedion vitreum</i>)

2000· article· en· W2108512160 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Stephen Peake, R. S. McKinley, D. A. Scruton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba Hydro
KeywordsStizostedionBiologyFisheryFish measurementPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>Animal scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swimming performance of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) from a wild population was measured relative to fork length (0.18-0.67 m) and water temperature (5.8-20.5°C), to provide models for setting water velocities in fishways and culverts. Ucrit60(the highest speed maintainable for 60 min) values ranged from 0.30 to 0.73 m/s and increased significantly with length and temperature. Ucrit10(the highest speed maintainable for 10 min) values ranged from 0.43 to 1.14 m/s and also increased significantly with fish length and water temperature. When startled, walleye were able to attain higher speeds (1.60-2.60 m/s) during short (temperature-independent) bursts of swimming activity. The relatively low Ucrit60values suggest that walleye possess a narrow scope for aerobic activity compared with other species, which may account for their poor performance in fishways. However, the small differences between Ucrit60and Ucrit10values and the large differences between Ucrit10and fast-start performance suggest that low passage efficiency may be caused by a behavioural disinclination to switch from low to high intensity activity.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations39
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207