Repeat <scp>UCrit</scp> and endurance swimming in juvenile shortnose sturgeon (<scp><i>Acipenser brevirostrum</i></scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous results show that juvenile shortnose sturgeon are steady swimmers and, compared with salmonids, generally have low critical swimming (UCrit) and endurance swimming capacities. Most studies on swimming capacities of sturgeon, and other fishes, include those where fish have only been swum once and the metrics of swimming performance are assessed (e.g., time swum, speed achieved). Under natural conditions, there are ample instances where fish undergo multiple swimming cycles when traversing fish ways, culverts and other sources of fast water flow. While some evidence exists for salmonids, the effects of repeat swimming are not well known for sturgeon. The current study consisted of two experiments. The first examined the UCrit of juvenile shortnose sturgeon following three consecutive swimming trials with a 30 min recovery period between subsequent tests. The second examined the endurance swimming capacities of juvenile shortnose sturgeon following three consecutive swimming trials with a 60 min recovery period between subsequent tests. Our findings indicate that (i) UCrit was consistent (~2 body lengths/s) among swimming trials; (ii) significant individual variation exists between individuals in the endurance swimming trials; and (iii) consistent results exist for individuals across swimming trials in both the UCrit and the endurance swimming tests. These results suggest that juvenile shortnose sturgeon have a high recovery capacity, and their behaviour and morphology likely reflect aspects of their swimming capacities.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".