Reduction and variability of trunk spines in the acanthocephalan <i>Corynosoma cetaceum</i>: the role of physical constraints on attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this study, we investigated a functional trade‐off between trunk attachment and trunk‐spine development in the acanthocephalan Corynosoma cetaceum. The worms live attached to the stomach and upper intestine of their cetacean definitive hosts, using the proboscis and spiny foretrunk as the main holdfast; the spiny hindtrunk can also attach by bending ventrally. When the hindtrunk bends, ventral compression generates an anterior fold (AF) and a posterior fold (PF). A morphological analysis based on 7,823 individuals collected from 10 franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei, revealed that spines were smaller and more variable in size and occurrence in the folds than on neighboring areas; the growth of fold spines seemed to be inhibited to various degrees. Spines were more reduced in the AF than in the PF, and spines of both folds were more reduced in females than in males. Patterns of reduction appeared to be directly related to the intensity of fold compression associated with hindtrunk bending. Fold compression could induce plastic inhibition of spine growth, and/or could make fold spines maladaptive, spines being reduced by natural selection. Apparently, fold spines neither contact the substrate, nor are they exposed to the environment when the hindtrunk attaches. Therefore, fold spines could have reduced, or lost, their primary function, at least in the definitive host. The reduction and variability of spines in C. cetaceum seem to be unique among Corynosoma species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".