Comparison of Scales, Pectoral Fin Rays and Opercles for Age Estimation of Ontario Redhorse, <em>Moxostoma</em>, Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opercle based age estimates of four redhorse species (Moxostoma anisurum, M. carinatum, M. macrolepidotum and M. valenciennesi) were compared with those from two structures that can be obtained non-lethally (scales and pectoral fin rays). For all species, age estimates from scales were significantly lower than those obtained from fin rays and opercles. After ages 4 to 5, age estimates from scales were consistently lower than those from the opercle. Overall differences between age estimates from fin rays and opercles were only detected for M. anisurum. For all species, age estimates from fin rays were consistently lower than opercles after ages 12 to 15. Closer agreement among different structures was identified for populations of M. macrolepidotum comprised of younger individuals. Maximum ages reported for Ontario populations were higher than those previously reported across the species’ ranges, reflecting either geographic differences in growth and longevity, or the historical use of scales for age estimation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".