Comparison of the prolonged swimming performances of closely related, morphologically distinct three‐spined sticklebacks<i>Gasterosteus</i>spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged swimming performances of two as yet unnamed species of three‐spined stickleback,Gasterosteusspp., were compared. The two fishes (not yet formally described, referred to here as benthic and limnetic) inhabit different niches within Paxton Lake, Texada Island, British Columbia, Canada, and are recent, morphologically distinct species. Limnetics had longer endurance during prolonged swimming than did benthics. The mean regression of the log10of fatigue time (Ft, s) on swimming speed (U, standard length,LSs−1) for limnetics (log10Ft = 7·03 − 0·46U) had a similar slope, but a significantly higher intercept than that for benthics (log10Ft = 5·55 − 0·43U). Adult benthics were larger, heavier and deeper‐bodied fish than limnetics. Limnetics, however, had a significantly greater pectoral fin edge:base ratio (mean ± s.e.: limnetics, 4·58 ± 0·43; benthics, 3·63 ± 0·27). In addition, limnetics had significantly lower drag coefficients (CD) than benthics (limnetics, log10CD = −0·49log10Re + 0·66; benthics, log10CD = −0·26log10Re − 0·30) whereReis the Reynolds number [(LSU (ν−1), whereUand ν are swimming velocity and the kinematic viscosity of the water, respectively]. Compared to their ancestral form, the anadromous three‐spined sticklebackGasterosteus aculeatusL., limnetics and benthics had significantly longer and shorter endurance times, respectively. In addition, both these fishes had significantly higher fast‐start velocities than their ancestral form. Selection due to differential resource use may have lead to divergence of body form, and, therefore, of steady swimming performance. Therefore predation may be the selective force for the similar high escape performance in these two fishes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".