An experimental study of some visually released behaviour patterns in young coho salmon and Kamloops trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coho underyearlings settle toward the bottom when illumination decreases. The critical intensity for this response was found to be approximately 1 foot candle. A study of the nipping phenomenon in coho and kamloops trout revealed that coho nip more Intensively than trout in a homotypic group. However; in a heterotypic group of equal numbers, trout nip more readily. In a heterotypic group coho nip less frequently and show a preference to nip other coho. By comparison, the nipping Intensity of trout is not reduced and they nip either species equally. Factors affecting nipping are size, color and light intensity. In a group of coho or trout, there is a marked tendency for the larger members to nip the smaller. Red and orange colors are least effective in eliciting a nipping response. Light intensity changes between 4- and 12 foot candles have no significant effect; however, below k foot candles nipping declines rapidly as illumination is decreased. The social releaser for nipping is movement but size and color are important components of the releaser. Additional patterns of behavior have been described for trout, namely, "threatening" and fighting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".