Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zebrafish are conspecific organisms that are sensitive to the use of ‘alarm cues’, a procedure in behavioural fish research used to create experimental stress responses. We used a commercially available chemical compound, chondroitin sulphate, extracted from shark cartilage, as the possible ‘alarm cue’. This chemical compound controls for standardization errors common with alarm cues extracted from individual fish. We conducted an open field test, followed by a novel object approach test, to assess the behavioural responses consequential of 30 minutes of chondroitin sulphate exposure at different concentrations (ie. 1, 10, and 100 mg/L). Secondly, we locally applied 250 μL of 100 mg/L of chondroitin sulphate to the centre of an open field arena, and again assessed behavioural responses. The time individual fish spent in the centre, transition, and thigmotaxis zones was examined, along with the distance each fish moved and the time spent immobile. There was a significant increase in the time fish spent in the thigmotaxis zone during the novel object approach test after chondroitin sulphate exposure. We also found that fish in the experimental group spent more time in the thigmotaxis zone following the injection of chondroitin sulphate, compared to fish in the control group. These findings suggest this compound can be used as a reliable alarm cue stimulus in zebrafish. Presented in absentia on April 27, 2020 at Student Research Day at MacEwan University in Edmonton, Alberta. (Conference cancelled) Faculty Mentor: Trevor Hamilton Department: Psychology NOTE: This work is available to MacEwan users only at https://roam.macewan.ca/islandora/object/gm:2042
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".