MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808741840 · doi:10.1111/jfb.13652

Estimating fish swimming metrics and metabolic rates with accelerometers: the influence of sampling frequency

2018· article· en· W2808741840 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob W. Brownscombe, Robert J. Lennox, Andy J. Danylchuk, Steven J. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCanada Foundation for InnovationSt. Joseph's College
KeywordsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Sampling (signal processing)AccelerometerFisheryStatisticsEcologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerometry is growing in popularity for remotely measuring fish swimming metrics, but appropriate sampling frequencies for accurately measuring these metrics are not well studied. This research examined the influence of sampling frequency (1-25 Hz) with tri-axial accelerometer biologgers on estimates of overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA), tail-beat frequency, swimming speed and metabolic rate of bonefish Albula vulpes in a swim-tunnel respirometer and free-swimming in a wetland mesocosm. In the swim tunnel, sampling frequencies of ≥ 5 Hz were sufficient to establish strong relationships between ODBA, swimming speed and metabolic rate. However, in free-swimming bonefish, estimates of metabolic rate were more variable below 10 Hz. Sampling frequencies should be at least twice the maximum tail-beat frequency to estimate this metric effectively, which is generally higher than those required to estimate ODBA, swimming speed and metabolic rate. While optimal sampling frequency probably varies among species due to tail-beat frequency and swimming style, this study provides a reference point with a medium body-sized sub-carangiform teleost fish, enabling researchers to measure these metrics effectively and maximize study duration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207