Comparison of FA compositions of selected tissues of phocid seals of Eastern Canada using one‐way and multivariate techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The FA composition of selected tissues of all six species of eastern Canadian phocid seals: bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), harp seal (P. groenlandica), hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), and ringed seal (P. hispida) was determined to detect possible differences among different tissues and species. A univariate approach was used to examine differences among different tissues and species separately, and a multivariate approach was taken in examining differences among different species and tissues simultaneously. Findings indicated that FA composition depended on both tissue and species of seal. However, differences were most apparent among tissues. Several unique features of the FA compositions were identified. Blubber was found to be high in the monounsaturated FA, but low in arachidonic acid and dimethyl acetals. Brain tissue lipids, on the other hand, were high in dimethyl acetals and DHA. Lung tissue lipids were very high in palmitic acid, and heart tissue lipids had a higher content of linoleic acid than did lipids of other tissues examined. Thus, the proportions of FA constituents in different tissues were different, most probably due to their varying functional requirements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".