MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of pulse‐echo acoustic microscopy to non‐invasively determine the sex of living larval sea lampreys

2004· article· en· W2059107796 on OpenAlexaff
E. Maeva, Laura Bruno, Barbara S. Zielinski, Margaret F. Docker, F. Severin, Roman Gr. Maev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnatomyGonadLampreyPetromyzonMicroscopyOvaryPulse (music)PathologyOpticsFisheryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapid, accurate and non‐invasive method to determine the sex of larval sea lampreys Petromyzon marinus, using wide‐field pulse‐scanning acoustic microscopy, is described. Cross‐sectional pulse‐echo scans were made with a high‐resolution acoustic microscope in 48 larvae (110–130 mm total length, LT), and the acoustic images generated showed such internal body structures as the gonad, intestine, kidneys, cardinal veins, notochord and musculature. Females were identified by the presence of a relatively large (1–1·5 mm diameter) ovary, which was considerably less reflective to the 15 to 25 MHz acoustic signals than the surrounding kidney tissue. Males were recognized by the lack of the large non‐reflective ovary and, in some cases, the appearance of a small (0·2–0·3 mm) testis with slightly stronger reflective properties than the kidney. Identification of sex was confirmed by optical microscopy following dissection, and in a blind test on an additional 10 specimens (121–168 mm LT), the acoustic method reliably identified sex in 100% of the larvae. These results indicate that acoustic microscopy can determine the sex of live sea lamprey larvae in c. 30 s per animal, a process which until now required dissection or invasive surgery.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207