MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795599945 · doi:10.1002/tafs.10034

Comparing Immobilization, Recovery, and Stress Indicators Associated with Electric Fish Handling Gloves and a Portable Electrosedation System

2018· article· en· W2795599945 on OpenAlexaff
Alice E.I. Abrams, Andrew M. Rous, Jill L. Brooks, Michael Lawrence, Jonathan D. Midwood, Susan E. Doka, Steven J. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaCarleton University
FundersF. Hoffmann-La Roche
KeywordsMicropterusBass (fish)Fish <Actinopterygii>Blood lactateSedationAnimal scienceMedicineBiologyFisheryToxicologyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fish sedation facilitates safer handling of fish during scientific research or fisheries assessment practices, thus limiting risk of injury to fish and reducing stress responses. In recent years, there has been growing interest in using electricity to sedate fish; two methods include (1) lower‐voltage, non‐pulsed‐DC fish handling gloves (FHGs) that tend to only sedate fish while the gloves are touching the animal; and (2) a comparatively high‐voltage, pulsed‐DC Portable Electrosedation System (PES) that leads to galvanonarcosis. This study compared the physiological consequences of exposure to FHGs and PES in teleost fish. Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus and Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides were exposed to FHGs, PES, or a handling control for a 3‐min simulated surgery. Blood was then sampled at 0.5 and 4.5 h postexposure and was analyzed for blood glucose, blood lactate, and plasma cortisol concentrations. Opercular rates were monitored during surgery, at 2 min postsurgery, and 0.5 h postsurgery. At 24 h postsurgery, time to exhaustion (via a standardized swimming chase protocol) was assessed. Fish exposed to FHGs tended to exhibit lower opercular rates than fish that were sedated with the PES during simulated surgery. Cortisol levels of Largemouth Bass treated with FHGs were higher than those of fish sedated with the PES. Glucose levels recorded for Bluegills at 4.5 h postsurgery were higher with FHGs than with the PES. In both species, lactate was lower for fish treated with FHGs than for those treated with the PES. At 24 h posttreatment, Bluegills sedated with FHGs exhibited a longer time to exhaustion than those subjected to the PES, whereas Largemouth Bass sedated with the PES exhibited a longer time to exhaustion than those sedated with FHGs. Physiological responses to treatments were inconsistent between species. Further investigation to determine the optimal electrosedation method is required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207