Physiological differences between lean and siscowet lake trout morphotypes: Are these metabolotypes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of a past study on lean and siscowet lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) reared under identical conditions from conception indicated that differences in growth and morphometry between these morphotypes have a genetic basis. Using these cultured lake trout, we found that siscowet lake trout had higher lipid levels and lower glycogen levels as compared with lean lake trout in skeletal muscle and liver. Lean lake trout also had higher circulating levels of lipids and glucose compared with siscowet lake trout. Analysis of F1progeny from crosses of the cultured morphotypes showed that progeny of crosses between siscowet females and siscowet males had higher lipid levels than all other crosses. The combined results indicate that the lake trout morphotypes differ substantially in the storage of energy, which may be related to their specific life histories. Siscowets store energy preferentially as lipid and appear to be more efficient in moving lipid from the blood into the muscle and liver. The lipid in siscowets may be adaptive for regulating buoyancy as well as an essential energy reserve for reproduction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".