Ontogeny of light avoidance in juvenile lake sturgeon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hatchery-reared age 1+ and 4+ lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) were assayed to determine the effectiveness of coloured, strobing LED light guidance device (LGD) at achieving behavioural guidance for attraction or avoidance responses. Based on an initial y-maze dichotomous choice study in age 1+ fish during daytime, we selected green, blue, orange, and full-spectrum white light, all strobing at 1 Hz, for further testing. During nighttime light guidance trials, age 1+ sturgeon demonstrated the fastest entries and greatest proportion of entries to the cone of illumination in the experimental raceway when the LGD was producing blue light, and the lowest proportion of entries in response to orange light. Conversely, they also spent the greatest amounts of time under illumination during orange light trials. Blue light was associated with the greatest proportion and total numbers of complete passages through the illuminated zone, although passage rates through this area were observed during the unilluminated control trials. White light resulted in the least time spent in the illuminated zone, and the lowest rates of passage. Under the nighttime testing scenario, the age 4+ sturgeon, by contrast, demonstrated strong avoidance of blue light and white light. While their behaviour was negatively phototactic in general, orange light was the least repulsive. For the behavioural guidance of lake sturgeon moving at night, we recommend the use of blue light strobing at 1 Hz for the attraction of the 1+ age class and white light strobing at 1 Hz for their repulsion. For age 4+ fish, we recommend the use of blue light or white light strobing at 1 Hz for repulsion and caution that (a) light as a behavioural guidance tool appears most effective as a repulsive stimulus, and (b) further testing under both laboratory and field conditions are 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".