MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058691246 · doi:10.1139/z03-150

Captive-born bottlenose dolphin × common dolphin (<i>Tursiops truncatus</i> × <i>Delphinus capensis</i>) intergeneric hybrids

2003· article· en· W2058691246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather R Zornetzer, Deborah A. Duffield

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBottlenose dolphinHybridZoologyBackcrossingDelphinus delphisEcologyBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) × long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) F1 hybrids were born at SeaWorld California between August 1992 and March 1993 to four different bottlenose dolphin dams. Based on coloration patterns of the neonates at the time of birth, as well as time of conception and blood protein electrophoretic analysis, the sire was determined to be a long-beaked common dolphin that was housed with the dams. Two of the F1 hybrids, a male and a female, are alive today and the female gave birth to a live-born backcross (B1) calf sired by a T. truncatus in October 2000. Morphometric and color pattern descriptions are presented here for the two living captive-born F1 hybrids, as well as for the B1 neonate. We have highlighted characteristics that might be indicative of T. truncatus × D. capensis hybridization, including intermediacy between the parents for tooth counts, color and striping patterns, and certain body proportions of the F1 hybrids. The overall size and appearance of the B1 calf were similar to those of a T. truncatus neonate. This note confirms fertility of these intergeneric hybrids.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207