Cardiac activity in walleye (<i>Sander vitreus</i>) during exposure to and recovery from chemical anaesthesia, electroanaesthesia and electrostunning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Handling and conducting invasive procedures are necessary for aspects of fisheries science, invariably inducing a stress response and imposing energetic demands on fish. Anaesthesia or immobilisation techniques are often used in an attempt to mitigate stress and improve welfare, yet these also come with their own impacts on post-release recovery. Here, the authors investigated whether changes in cardiac activity (heart rates over time, heart rate maxima, and scopes) differed in adult walleye (Sander vitreus) anaesthetised with AQUI-S® 20E (eugenol), electroanaesthetised with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit or electrostunned with a commercially developed stunning unit. This experiment was divided into two trials. In the first trial, fish were implanted with heart rate loggers and left to recover for c. 4 days. In the second trial, fish were implanted with heart rate loggers, given 3 days to recover and re-exposed to their initial treatments (excluding surgery). Post-treatment cardiac activity was quantified for both trials. Although highly variable across individuals, the authors found no significant differences in heart rate changes over time or recovery times among treatments. Maximum heart rates were consistent among treatment groups, yet significant differences in heart rate scope provided further evidence of strong interindividual variation in the second trial. Based on these results, the authors did not identify any welfare-relevant differences or concerns associated with one treatment over another. Further investigations of the relationships between measures of cardiac function and other physiological stress markers would be beneficial towards identifying best practices for fish handling in fisheries science.
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".