MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068027661 · doi:10.1139/z06-078

Sexual dimorphism in pelvic fin length of Atlantic cod

2006· article· en· W2068027661 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jon Egil Skjæraasen, Sherrylynn Rowe, Jeffrey A. Hutchings

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologyGadusAtlantic codGadidaeSexual selectionTraitZoologySexual maturityFish finFinAnatomyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioural differences between females and males may result in sexual dimorphism among morphological traits associated with these behaviours. In the broadcast-spawning Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua L., 1758), release of gametes occurs during a “ventral mount” in which the male positions himself directly beneath the female while grasping her with his pelvic fins. Males also display the pelvic fins during agonistic encounters with other males. Based on data obtained from four Atlantic cod populations off Canada and Norway, we find clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in pelvic fin size, the fins being significantly larger in males than in females. Pelvic fin size was, however, not more variable than other morphological traits and was not correlated with body condition or drumming muscles mass (hypothesized to be a secondary sexual characteristic in this species). To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate sexual dimorphism in any external morphological trait in a gadoid fish. Although the observed differences in pelvic fin size may be a product of sexual selection, we identify future work to test this hypothesis and to explore more fully the causes and fitness consequences of this sexual bias in Atlantic cod.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207