Optical properties, mitochondria, and sutures of lenses of fishes: a comparative study of nine species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative study of lenses from nine fish species consisted of seven teleosts (oscar, Astronotus ocellatus; smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu; orangespotted sunfish, Lepomis humilus; Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus; common carp, Cyprinus carpio; rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss; American eel, Anguilla rostrata) and two species representing more primitive forms (brook lamprey, Lampetra lamotteni; lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens). Lens optical properties were analysed using an automated scanning laser monitor. Lens suture anatomy and the morphology and distribution of mitochondria were analysed using a confocal laser scanning microscope. Lenses of Arctic char exhibited the sharpest focus, whereas American eel lenses exhibited the poorest ability to focus and the highest amount of spherical aberration. Metabolically active mitochondria are found in lens epithelial and superficial cortical fibre cells, as in mammals. The results of the detailed study of the lens sutures show that teleost lenses exhibit "line" sutures, whereas "Y" sutures are seen in lake sturgeon lenses. Line sutures are also seen in lenses of brook lamprey and American eel. These last results contrast with the common report of "point" sutures in fish lenses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".