The effects of handling time, ambient light, and anaesthetic method, on the standardized measurement of fish colouration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of handling time, ambient light intensity, and anaesthetic method, on the collection of spectral reflectance data were assessed in two species of Malawi cichlids ( Melanochromis auratus and Metriaclima zebra ). Using spectrometry, colour patches were measured over 10 min, under increasing ambient light levels, and using three anaesthetic methods. As time elapsed, maximum percent reflectance (R max ) decreased across all anaesthetic methods and species, suggesting that measurements should be taken immediately after capture and anaesthetization. With increasing light intensity, R max increased significantly, suggesting that measurements should be taken under natural ambient conditions when possible. Finally, we found that anaesthetizing fish using an ice bath produced significantly higher R max than using either MS-222 (tricaine methanesulphonate) or clove oil (eugenol). However, the highest proportion of ultraviolet (UV) colouration was recorded while fish were anaesthetized with clove oil. Our results highlight the variation involved in measuring fish colour patterns using two related species, and thus indicate the need for a standardized approach to collecting spectral reflectance data in 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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".