The upper temperature and hypoxia limits of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) depend greatly on the method utilized
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Atlantic salmon were: (i) implanted with heart rate (fH) data storage tags (DSTs), pharmacologically stimulated to maximum fH, and warmed at 10°C h-1 (i.e. tested using a 'rapid screening protocol'); (ii) fitted with Doppler® flow probes, recovered in respirometers and given a critical thermal maximum (CTmax) test at 2°C h-1; and (iii) implanted with fH DSTs, recovered in a tank with conspecifics for 4 weeks, and had their CTmax determined at 2°C h-1. Fish in respirometers and those free-swimming were also exposed to a stepwise decrease in water oxygen level (100% to 30% air saturation) to determine the oxygen level at which bradycardia occurred. Resting fH was much lower in free-swimming fish than in those in respirometers (∼49 versus 69 beats min-1) and this was reflected in their scope for fH (∼104 versus 71 beats min-1) and CTmax (27.7 versus 25.9°C). Further, the Arrhenius breakpoint temperature and temperature at peak fH for free-swimming fish were considerably greater than for those tested in the respirometers and given a rapid screening protocol (18.4, 18.1 and 14.6°C; and 26.5, 23.2 and 20.2°C, respectively). Finally, the oxygen level at which bradycardia occurred was significantly higher in free-swimming salmon than in those in respirometers (∼62% versus 53% air saturation). These results: highlight the limitations of some lab-based methods of determining fH parameters and thermal tolerance in fishes; and suggest that scope for fH may be a more reliable and predictive measure of a fish's upper thermal tolerance than their peak fH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".