Does eel metamorphosis cause a breakdown in the tenets of otolith applications? A case study using the speckled worm eel (<i>Myrophis punctatus</i>, Ophichthidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several basic tenets of otolith research have been questioned recently with regard to eel metamorphosis. Specifically, some researchers have suggested that otolith increment formation is not daily, and otolith material may be resorped during metamorphosis. We conducted a rearing experiment to test the hypothesis that increment formation is daily and that the otolith continues to grow during eel metamorphosis. We marked the otoliths of wild-caught Myrophis punctatus leptocephali and reared these fish through metamorphosis. Metamorphosis was characterized by a decreasing standard length, pre-anal length, and body depth accompanied by an increase in pigmentation and a change in behavior. Increment formation was daily or near-daily through metamorphosis, and the otolith continued to grow during metamorphosis. Thus, the basic tenets of otolith application apply to eel metamorphosis, and non-daily ring deposition and resorption should not be used as explanations for otolith characteristics of eels (e.g., back-calculated hatch dates) unless demonstrated experimentally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".