MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Histological study of the development of the embryo and early larva ofOreochromis niloticus (Pisces: Cichlidae)

2001· article· en· W2075362033 on OpenAlexaff
Carol M. Morrison, Tsutomu Miyake, James R. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsGrace (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBlastulaHatchingYolk sacAnatomyEmbryoHuman fertilizationLarvaIntegumentary systemEmbryogenesisZoologyEcologyFisheryGastrulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The developmental stages of Oreochromis niloticus are similar to those described in other mouth-breeding tilapias except that, as in zebrafish, no cavity was found in the blastula. Variation in the rate of development of the embryo and larva of O. niloticus was found within a clutch of eggs as well as between clutches. Hatching glands are described for the first time in tilapias. They are widely distributed within the ectoderm covering the head, body, tail, and surface of the yolk sac near its attachment to the embryo. Timing of larval development is similar to that in other mouthbrooding tilapias, but is slower than that found in substrate-spawning tilapias. A pneumatic duct connects the swimbladder to the digestive tract and swimbladder inflation and initiation of feeding occurs at about the same time. The digestive tract of the larva 8 and 9 days after fertilization is similar to that found in the adult, except that there are no digestive glands. An endocrine pancreatic islet was first seen 76 h after fertilization. A prominent thymus gland is present at 100 h. Hematopoietic tissue develops in the vicinity of the pronephros during early larval development. A spleen develops later, 7 days after fertilization.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations141
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207