The effects of horizontally and vertically oriented baffles on flow structure and ascent performance of upstream-migrating fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable effort has been expended to construct culverts and fishways that allow for fish passage. However, the designs have seldom considered behaviour, energetics, and biomechanics of fish. In this study, we performed controlled experiments, in which upstream-migrating Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were allowed to volitionally enter either one of two open channels. These channels were outfitted with horizontally and vertically oriented baffles. The flow structure was characterized using acoustic Doppler velocimeter measurements. The added baffles had a marked influence on the flow field, which was distinct between horizontal and vertical baffles, indicative of horizontally and vertically orientated vortices, respectively. Passage success was measured, both in terms of attraction and ascent performance under each flow condition. The results indicated that Alewife and Brook Trout staged significantly more attempts into the vertical baffled channel compared to the horizontal baffled channel. However, Alewife traversed greater distances swimming in the channel with the horizontal baffles at the lower flow condition. Brook Trout also swam further under low flow but traversed similar dtistances in both channels. This information furthers our understanding of both ascent performance and behavioural responses of fish in relation to turbulent flow and roughness orientation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".