Orientation and Position of Fish Affects Recovery Time from Electrosedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Commercially available electrosedation apparatuses (e.g., the Smith‐Root Portable Electroanesthesia System [PES]) are growing in popularity within the fisheries research community. This technology can be used to immobilize fish rapidly and does not require a withdrawal period before fish are released. A number of studies examined how various settings (e.g., duration, frequency, voltage) influence the performance of the PES for fish sedation, but comparatively less is known about the role of fish orientation and position on the efficacy of electrosedation within the PES. We compared recovery times of Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus upon manipulation of three variables: orientation of fish, electric field size (i.e., spacing between the anode and cathode), and fish proximity relative to the anode. Fish were individually exposed to pulsed DC with a standardized frequency (100 Hz), voltage (90 V), and shock duration (3 s). Full recovery time was significantly longer for fish oriented at horizontal angles (0° and 180°) than at acute angles (45° and 135°). Significant interactions were found between orientation and electrode spacing, as well as between orientation and fish proximity. These findings are pertinent to researchers in the field looking to optimize recovery time for a quick release after surgery, tagging, or any other time fish sedation is required.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".