MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290250095 · doi:10.1111/jfb.12833

Responses by fishes to environmental hypoxia: integration through Fry's concept of aerobic metabolic scope

2016· review· en· W2290250095 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Claireaux, Denis Chabot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyScope (computer science)LimitingHypoxia (environmental)Fish <Actinopterygii>Oxygen deliveryEcologyEnvironmental ethicsOxygenFisheryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of understanding the effect of the environment on fish activities and performance, in any generalized way, remains intractable. Solving this issue is, however, a key to addressing contemporary environmental concerns. As suggested 20 years ago by W. H. Neill, the authors returned to the drawing board, using as a background the conceptual scheme initially proposed by F. E. J. Fry. They revisited the effect of ambient oxygen availability upon fish metabolism and clarified the definitions of limiting, critical and incipient lethal oxygen (ILO) levels. The concepts of oxy-conformer and oxy-regulator are revisited, and P. W. Hochachka's idea of scope for survival is explored. Finally, how the cardiovascular system contributes to the capacity of fishes to respond to the reduced oxygen availability is considered. Various hands-on recommendations and software (R scripts) are provided for researchers interested in investigating these concepts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations265
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207