Why otoliths? Insights from inner ear physiology and fisheries biology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Otoliths are of interest to investigators from several disciplines including systematics, auditory neuroscience, and fisheries. However, there is often very little sharing of information or ideas about otoliths across disciplines despite similarities in the questions raised by different groups of investigators. A major purpose of this paper is to present otolith-related questions common to all disciplines and then demonstrate that the issues are not only similar but also that more frequent interactions would be mutually beneficial. Because otoliths evolved as part of the inner ear to serve the senses of balance and hearing, we first discuss the basic structure of the ear. We then raise several questions that deal with the structure and patterns of otolith morphology and how changes in otoliths with fish age affect hearing and balance. More specifically, we ask about the significance of otolith size and how this might affect ear function; the growth of otoliths and how hearing and balance may or may not change with growth; the significance of different otolith shapes with respect to ear function; the functional significance of otoliths that do not contact the complete sensory epithelium; and why teleost fishes have otoliths and not the otoconia found in virtually all other extant vertebrates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it