Comparing methods for determining the metabolic capacity of lumpfish (<scp><i>Cyclopterus lumpus</i></scp> Linnaeus 1758)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) mortalities have been reported during the summer at some North Atlantic salmon cage‐sites where they serve as “cleaner fish.” To better understand this species' physiology and whether limitations in their metabolic capacity and thermal tolerance can explain this phenomenon, we compared the aerobic scope (AS) of 6°C‐acclimated lumpfish (~50 g and 8.8 cm in length at the beginning of experiments) when all individuals (N = 12) were given a chase to exhaustion, a critical swim speed (Ucrit) test, and a critical thermal maximum (CTMax) test (rate of warming 2°C h−1). The Ucrit and CTMax of the lumpfish were 2.36 ± 0.08 body lengths per second and 20.6 ± 0.3°C. The AS of lumpfish was higher during the Ucrit test (206.4 ± 8.5 mg O2 kg−1 h−1) versus that measured in either the CTMax test or after the chase to exhaustion (141.0 ± 15.0 and 124.7 ± 15.5 mg O2 kg−1 h−1, respectively). Maximum metabolic rate (MMR), AS, and “realistic” AS (ASR) measured using the three different protocols were not significantly correlated, indicating that measurements of metabolic capacity using one of these methods cannot be used to estimate values that would be obtained using another method. Additional findings include that (1) the lumpfish's metabolic capacity is comparable to that of Atlantic cod, suggesting that they are not as “sluggish” as previously suggested in the literature, and (2) their CTMax (20.6°C when acclimated to 6°C), in combination with their recently determined ITMax (20.6°C when acclimated to 10°C), indicates that high sea‐cage temperatures are unlikely to be the primary cause of lumpfish mortalities at salmon sea‐cages during the summer.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".