The function of sound production by Atlantic cod as inferred from patterns of variation in drumming muscle mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We quantified variation in the mass of drumming muscles (the sound-producing musculature) among individual Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L., 1758) for comparison with other evidence on the role of sexual selection in the evolution of sound production by this species. Based on 913 cod sampled from the Western Scotian Shelf in 2001–2002, we found that males had drumming muscles that were larger than those of females and that increased in mass prior to spawning and declined thereafter. Drumming muscle mass was highly variable, particularly among males, and generally more variable than other morphological traits (somatic mass and body length). This pattern of drumming muscle variation is consistent with the hypothesis that drumming muscles are influenced by sexual selection and suggests that sound production by males during the spawning season has fitness benefits, perhaps through a role in mate competition. Drumming muscle mass of spawning males was also positively associated with body size, condition, and fertilization potential, suggesting that sound production may be an indicator of the size of the signaler and may reveal information about individual quality. In conjunction with previous studies of sound production by Atlantic cod, our study underscores the potential importance of sound production to cod spawning behaviour.
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".