MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113000728 · doi:10.1139/f06-074

Olfactory inhibition and recovery in chum salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus keta</i>) following copper exposure

2006· article· en· W2113000728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason F. Sandahl, Go Miyasaka, Nobuhisa Koide, Hiroshi Ueda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMitsubishi Foundation
KeywordsOncorhynchusOlfactionCopperHatcheryOlfactory systemBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyChemistryFisheryEcologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copper can be an effective hatchery treatment to control certain parasitic and fungal infections in salmonids, yet it is also highly toxic to the fish's olfactory system. Numerous reports have described the early inhibitory impacts of copper on fish olfaction, but very few have addressed processes of recovery. Here we show that the chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) olfactory system can recover from short-term (4 h) exposures to copper (3–58 µg·L–1) within 1 day, as indicated by electro-olfactogram (EOG) recordings. Recovery followed initial EOG reductions of up to 88%. We also applied a novel cytophysiological approach to monitor changes in the olfactory receptor cells using a fluorescent styryl dye, AM1-43. Copper's influence on the number of receptor cells that labelled with the dye was biphasic, initially increasing the number at the two lowest copper concentrations (3 and 8 µg·L–1) and decreasing the number at the two highest concentrations (24 and 58 µg·L–1). Changes in the ability of olfactory receptor neurons to internalize the dye were monitored up to 10 days in fish recovering from copper exposure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207