A comparison of tag retention and mortality from two tagging methods for internal tag placement in Channel Catfish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Documenting the movement of Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus through telemetry, where a transmitter tag is surgically implanted in the fish, can provide valuable insight into the species' spatial ecology and habitat use. However, since fish in the order Siluriformes can expel foreign objects such as tags from their body cavity, the utility of telemetry technology may be limited for Channel Catfish. This study aimed to determine (1) how quickly Channel Catfish reject tags that were surgically implanted into the body cavity, (2) if surgical implantation of transmitter tags causes mortality, and (3) what surgical method is best to minimize tag rejection and/or mortality. Methods Three surgical trials were conducted on Channel Catfish (n = 24) using two tag implantation methods: a nontethered method, in which the tag was freely implanted into the body cavity, and a tethered method, where the tag was attached to the pectoral girdle. Fish were observed in the lab for 30 days for trials 1 and 2 and 225 days for trial 3 following tag implantation. Result No complete tag rejections occurred during any of the three experimental trials. However, all five tethered fish experienced mortality during trial 3 (58–221 days postsurgery). Necropsies indicated that the tethered tagging method led to septicaemia infections and internal lacerations from the tether, which were not observed in the nontethered fish. Tags in the nontethered fish were in the process of being absorbed into the intestinal tract, which over time might have led to tag rejection. Conclusion While rejection is possibly the end point of the nontethered tagging method, our results suggest it is nevertheless the better tagging method for Channel Catfish given higher survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".