Upper thermal limits of cardiac function for Arctic cod <i>Boreogadus saida</i>, a key food web fish species in the Arctic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the upper thermal limits of Arctic cod Boreogadus saida by measuring the response of maximum heart rate (f(Hmax)) to acute warming. One set of fish were tested in a field laboratory in Cambridge Bay (CB), Nunavut (north of the Arctic Circle), and a second set were tested after air transport to and 6 month temperature acclimation at the Vancouver Aquarium (VA) laboratory. In both sets of tests, with B. saida acclimated to 0° C, f(Hmax) increased during acute warming up to temperatures considerably higher than the acclimation temperature and the near-freezing Arctic temperatures in which they are routinely found. Indeed, f(Hmax) increased steadily between 0.5 and 5.5° C, with no significant difference between the CB and VA tests (P > 0.05) and with an overall mean ± s.e. Q10 of 2.4 ± 0.5. The first Arrhenius breakpoint temperature (T(AB)) for f(Hmax) was also statistically indistinguishable for the two sets of tests (mean ± s.e. 3.2 ± 0.3 and 3.6 ± 0.3° C), suggesting that the temperature optimum for B. saida could be reliably measured after live transport to a more southerly laboratory location. Continued warming above 5.5° C revealed a large variability among individuals in the upper thermal limits that triggered cardiac arrhythmia (T(arr)), ranging from 10.2 to 15.2° C with mean ± s.e. 12.4 ± 0.4° C (n = 11) for the field study. A difference did exist between the CB and VA breakpoint temperatures when the Q10 value decreased below 2 (the Q10 breakpoint temperature; T(QB)) at 8.0 and 5.5° C, respectively. These results suggest that factors, other than thermal tolerance and associated cardiac performance, may influence the realized distribution of B. saida within the Arctic Circle.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".