MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200122927 · doi:10.1111/jfb.14978

Insights into the behavioural responses of juvenile thornback ray <scp><i>Raja clavata</i></scp> to alternating and direct current magnetic fields

2021· article· en· W4200122927 on OpenAlexaff
Luana Albert, Frédéric Olivier, Aurélie Jolivet, Laurent Chauvaud, Sylvain Chauvaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsGDG Environnement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternating currentBiologyHelmholtz coilDirect currentJuvenileMagnetic fieldZoologyEcologyPhysicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of energy transition, marine renewable energy devices (MRED) are currently expanding in developed countries inducing the deployment of dense networks of submarine power cables. Concern has thus raised about the cable magnetic emissions (direct or alternating current) because of potential interference with the sensorial environment of magneto-sensitive species, such as sharks and rays. This study sought to assess the short-term behavioural responses of juvenile thornback rays (Raja clavata) (n = 15) to direct and alternating (50 Hz) uniform 450-μT artificial magnetic fields using 1 h focal-sampling design based on a detailed ethogram. Careful control of magnetic fields' temporal and spatial scales was obtained in laboratory conditions through a custom-made Helmholtz coil device. Overall, qualitative or quantitative behavioural responses of juvenile rays did not significantly vary between control vs. exposed individuals over the morning period. Nonetheless, rays under direct current magnetic field increased their activity over the midday period. Synchronisation patterns were also observed for individuals receiving alternating current exposure (chronologic and qualitative similarities) coupled with a high inter-individual variance. Further studies should consider larger batches of juveniles to address the effect of long-term exposure and explore the sensitivity range of rays with dose-response designs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207