MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067738709 · doi:10.1139/z05-011

Ontogenetic changes in the visual acuity of<i>Sepia officinalis</i>measured using the optomotor response

2005· article· en· W2067738709 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gillian Groeger, Peter A. Cotton, R. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepiaCuttlefishBiologyVisual acuityLight intensityCephalopodIntensity (physics)OntogenyOfficinalisAnatomyOpticsOphthalmologyPhysicsEcologyMedicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many organisms vision is of fundamental importance to many aspects of their lives. Here we present the first study to examine the effects of ontogeny and light intensity on the vision of a cephalopod. We measured the visual acuity of four size classes of Sepia officinalis L., 1758 (common cuttlefish) under four light intensities. We used an optomotor testing system in which we recorded the unconditioned whole-body movements exhibited by individuals when placed inside a rotating cylinder lined with vertical black and white stripes. By varying the width of these stripes to determine the minimum width associated with a positive response, we were able to estimate the visual acuity angle or minimum separable angle (MSA). We found a significant effect of both body size and light intensity; larger animals had greater visual acuity, while individuals of all size classes discriminated more detail at higher light intensities. The minimum recorded MSA for S. officinalis was 34' of arc (0.57°) for the largest animals (80 mm) at the highest light intensity used (15 µW·cm –2 ). Decreasing light intensity from 15 to 4.5 µW·cm –2 affected animals of all sizes to approximately the same degree, reducing their visual acuity by approximately 55%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207