MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2021751764 · doi:10.1139/f07-119

Why are salmonids pink?

2007· article· en· W2021751764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hannah Rajasingh, Dag Inge Våge, Scott A. Pavey, Stig W. Omholt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFleshFish migrationTraitNatural selectionCarotenoidSelection (genetic algorithm)EcologyEvolutionary biologyZoologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pigmented flesh, a trait uniquely present in four of the 10 genera of salmonid fishes, is caused by the ubiquitous capacity of these genera for accumulating dietary carotenoids in muscle tissue. Here we combine life history reasoning with current knowledge of carotenoid metabolism to suggest a possible evolutionary scenario accounting for the emergence and maintenance of this phenotype. We claim that a basal carotenoid metabolism and a hormonally controlled targeted degradation of muscle tissue during maturation were established before the anadromous life style and that these proximal features were concomitantly exploited by natural selection in an ancestral anadromous and nest-making salmonid. Three different selection regimes are suggested to account for available empirical data concerning emergence, as well as maintenance, of the flesh pigmentation trait: a primary one driven by the need for enhanced somatic maintenance accompanying nest making under starving conditions, a secondary one driven by sexual selection, and a tertiary one driven by exposure to a meager carotenoid diet in nonanadromous freshwater populations. Finally, an experimental research program thought to be instrumental for fully resolving this evolutionary puzzle is suggested.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→