Aerobic and Anaerobic Swimming Performance of Individual Atlantic Cod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) were exercised using three different measures of swimming performance. (1) An endurance test (critical swimming speed, U(crit), protocol) designed to assess predominantly aerobic endurance swimming (duration hours). (2) An acceleration test (U(burst)), in which the fish were required to swim against a rapidly increasing current until exhausted (duration minutes). This test was designed to assess predominantly glycolytic-based swimming capacity. (3) A sprint test that examined the animals' ability to swim away from a sudden stimulus (duration seconds). Rates of oxygen consumption ( mdot (O2)) during the endurance test and various morphological variables of the individual fish were also measured. Both aerobic and anaerobic swimming performance of individual cod were found to be significantly repeatable over a 3 month period. mdot (O2) during the U(crit) protocol was also significantly repeatable at intermediate to high swimming speeds, but not at low speeds. Our results support extrapolation from metabolic rates at incremented swimming speeds to zero activity as the best way to measure standard metabolic rate in cod. While performance in the U(crit) test and the sprint test were positively correlated, there was a negative correlation between performance in the U(crit) test and performance in the U(burst) test. This implies a potential trade-off in individual cod between stamina and the ability to use glycolytic-based locomotion. Inter-individual variation in swimming performance during these protocols, while substantial, was not correlated with individual variation in fin surface areas, age or morphology. However, U(burst) performance was dependent upon the sex of the animals, while performance during the U(crit) protocol was significantly correlated with their aerobic scope for 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".