MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993156210 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3306

Countergradient variation in body shape between two populations of Atlantic cod ( <i>Gadus morhua</i> )

2005· article· en· W1993156210 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie Marcil, Douglas P. Swain, Jeffrey A. Hutchings

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaDivision of Ocean SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsGadusBiologyAtlantic codGenetic divergenceZoologyGenetic variationEcologyGenetic variabilityPhenotypeSelection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary biologyGenetic diversityPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryGeneticsGeneDemographyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in morphological traits is generally thought to be cogradient, with environmental effects on phenotypic expression reinforcing genetic differences between populations. We compared body shape between two populations of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Striking shape differences occurred between juveniles from the two populations when reared in a common laboratory environment. However, no difference in body shape occurred between wild-reared juveniles from the two populations, suggesting that the genetic differences between populations were obscured by opposing effects of the environmental differences experienced in the wild. We suggest that much of the genetic diversity in body shape of fishes may be cryptic, with stabilizing selection for the same optimal phenotype resulting in genetic divergence between populations subject to contrasting environmental influences.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.313
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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations89
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207