Reaction field, capture field, and search volume of 0+ nase (<i>Chondrostoma nasus</i>): effects of body size and water velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction field, capture field, and search volume of four size-classes of 0+ nase (Chondrostoma nasus) were investigated at two water velocity regimes using flow-tank experiments. Reactive and capture distances, measured in three dimensions, increased linearly with fish size and were larger in flowing water than in calm water. The 0+ nase reacted almost exclusively to prey that were situated in their forward-directed hemisphere. In flowing water, 0+ nase systematically drifted and (or) swam downstream with the current in pursuit of prey that had drifted past their stations. Captures thus occurred in their backward-directed hemisphere. Based on the fish's swimming speed and its reaction field, we propose a modified method for estimating search volume of 0+ nase and other rheophilic cyprinid species with a similar feeding mode. Search volume also increased linearly with fish size and was larger in flowing water than in calm water. We argue why the foraging mode of 0+ nase in flowing water is the effect of a constraint imposed by water current rather than the result of an economic strategy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".