Structure of the inner ear of bluefin tuna <i>Thunnus thynnus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ears of five large bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus were examined by light and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The gross structure of the ear is similar to that in other fishes. The ears, however, appear to be held more rigidly in place than in other species through the presence of an extensive connective tissue between the membranous ear and the surrounding bone. Moreover, unlike other fishes, the semicircular canals and otolithic end organs have thick cartilaginous walls and there is a dense matrix surrounding the otoliths rather than a more watery fluid found in other species. SEM revealed that the saccular epithelium has a ‘standard’ hair cell orientation pattern. The hair cell orientation patterns in the lagena and utricle resemble those found in most other fishes. Ciliary bundle density and length vary in different epithelial regions and each ear had >2 × 106 sensory cells. The morphological results support the hypothesis that bluefin tuna probably do not detect sounds to much over 1000 Hz (if that high) and that only very loud anthropogenic sounds have the potential to affect hearing in this 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) | 0.002 | 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".