MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946807410 · doi:10.1093/conphys/coz020

Effects of sound exposure from a seismic airgun on heart rate, acceleration and depth use in free-swimming Atlantic cod and saithe

2019· article· en· W2946807410 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Grimsrud Davidsen, Hefeng Dong, Markus Linné, Mathias H. Andersson, Adam T. Piper, Tanya S. Prystay, Eivind B Hvam, Eva B. Thorstad, Frederick G. Whoriskey, Steven J. Cooke, Aslak Darre Sjursen, Lars Rønning, Tim Cato Netland, A. D. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsOcean Tracking NetworkDalhousie UniversityCarleton University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth SciencesDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsSound (geography)GadusAtlantic codSound exposureOceanographyEnvironmental scienceFisheryUnderwaterAcousticsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

). Biologgers recording heart rate and body temperature and acoustic transmitters recording locomotory activity (i.e. acceleration) and depth were used to monitor free-swimming individuals during experimental sound exposures (18-60 dB above ambient). Fish were held in a large sea cage (50 m diameter; 25 m depth) and exposed to sound exposure trials over a 3-day period. Concurrently, the behaviour of untagged cod and saithe was monitored using video recording. The cod exhibited reduced heart rate (bradycardia) in response to the particle motion component of the sound from the airgun, indicative of an initial flight response. No behavioural startle response to the airgun was observed; both cod and saithe changed both swimming depth and horizontal position more frequently during sound production. The saithe became more dispersed in response to the elevated sound levels. The fish seemed to habituate both physiologically and behaviourally with repeated exposure. In conclusion, the sound exposures induced over the time frames used in this study appear unlikely to be associated with long-term alterations in physiology or behaviour. However, additional research is needed to fully understand the ecological consequences of airgun use in marine ecosystems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207