Comparison of the swimming ability and upstream-migration behavior between chum salmon and masu salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spawning ground of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) is usually located farther downriver than that of masu salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) in Hokkaido, Japan. To compare the swimming abilities of these two species, the relationship between swimming speed and oxygen consumption was compared using a swim tunnel in the laboratory. Then, the upstream-migration behaviors of chum salmon and masu salmon were compared using electromyogram telemetry at fish passages in the Toyohira River, Hokkaido. In the laboratory study, the standard metabolic rate of masu salmon was lower and the critical swimming speed (Ucrit) was faster than those of chum salmon. In the field study, the holding time needed to recover the swimming performance exceeding Ucritat the fish passages and the trial number needed to pass the fish passages were significantly lower for masu salmon than chum salmon. These results revealed that masu salmon are more adaptable to extended swimming in high water velocity conditions than chum salmon and that masu salmon are better equipped for a long distance upstream migration to their spawning ground than chum salmon.
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) | 0.001 | 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".