Separating oil from water: suspension-feeding goldfish ingest liquid vegetable oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that goldfish (Carassius auratus) voluntarily ingest liquid canola oil at the surface of the water and can swallow significant quantities of oil. The ability of fish to separate floating oil from water has not been tested previously, and the mechanisms used to retain oil in the form of suspended droplets, globules, or a surface film are unknown. Chromatograms of fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) prepared from gut samples confirmed that goldfish were able to obtain a substantial proportion of their daily lipid intake from canola oil at the surface of laboratory aquaria. Quantification of goldfish suspension-feeding, processing, and spitting behavior suggested that upper jaw protrusion with a closed mouth during processing was important for the handling of different food types, including oil. Crossflow filtration and the generation of vortices could be involved in oil retention by goldfish, as these processes are used industrially to separate oil from water. These results have implications for the uptake of hydrophobic pollutants and dietary lipids at the surface by suspension-feeding fishes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".