MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985340914 · doi:10.1139/z10-041

Regulatory actions of neuropeptides and peptide hormones on the reproduction of molluscsThe present review is one of a series of occasional review articles that have been invited by the Editors and will feature the broad range of disciplines and expertise represented in our Editorial Advisory Board.

2010· article· en· W1985340914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fumihiro Morishita, Yasuo Furukawa, O. Matsushima, Hiroyuki Minakata

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNeuropeptideHormoneReproductionPeptide hormoneSecond messenger systemReproductive physiologyGonadotropin-releasing hormoneEcologyZoologyPhysiologyNeuroscienceCell biologyEndocrinologyReceptorSignal transductionLuteinizing hormoneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive success of individual animals is essential for the survival of any species. Molluscs have adapted to a wide variety of environments (freshwater, brackish water, seawater, and terrestrial habits) and have evolved unique tactics for reproduction. Both of these features attract the academic interests of scientists. Because neuropeptides and peptide hormones play critical roles in neural and neurohormonal regulation of physiological functions and behaviors in this animal group, the regulatory actions of these messengers in reproduction have been extensively investigated. In this review, we will briefly summarize how peptidergic messengers are involved in various aspects of reproduction, using some peptides such as egg-laying hormone, caudo-dorsal cell hormone, APGWamide, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone as typical examples.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207