Why otoliths? Insights from inner ear physiology and fisheries biology
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".