MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533193506 · doi:10.3390/d7020195

Multiple Paternity and Preliminary Population Genetics of Giant Pacific Octopuses, Enteroctopus dofleini, in Oregon, Washington and the Southeast Coast of Vancouver Island, BC

2015· article· en· W1533193506 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shawn Larson, Catherine Ramsay, James Cosgrove

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayPopulationRange (aeronautics)Biologyoctopus (software)ZoologyGenetic diversityFounder effectMicrosatellitePopulation geneticsEcologyGeographyFisheryDemographyAlleleArchaeologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 77 giant Pacific octopus, Enteroctopus dofleini, tissue samples were collected from the Oregon Coast (OR), Neah Bay Washington (NB), Puget Sound Washington (PS) and the southeast coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada (BC) for genetic analyses. A suite of eight variable microsatellite markers developed from giant Pacific octopuses were amplified in these samples to determine population diversity, structure, relatedness and paternity. The majority of loci met Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium expectations within each population. We found moderate genetic diversity (average observed heterozygosity = 0.445, range = 0.307–0.515 and average expected heterozygosity = 0.567, range = 0.506–0.696) and moderate population structuring with distinct separation of groups (FST values ranged from 0.101 between BC and PS to 0.237 between BC and NB). Several egg strings from the BC population were collected from three female octopus dens for relatedness and paternity analyses. Results suggest strong support for multiple paternity within one egg clutch with progeny sired by between two to four males.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversitySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207