Sexual dichromatism in the marbled salamander, <i>Ambystoma opacum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports of sexual dichromatism in salamanders are rare and have been generally restricted to a few species in the families Hynobiidae and Salamandridae. We used image analysis techniques to examine sexual dichromatism in the marbled salamander, Ambystoma opacum (Gravenhorst, 1807). We measured the average hue of white saddles on male and female marbled salamanders (n = 118), as well as the proportion of white dorsal surface area relative to the black dorsal surface area, to determine the extent of sexual dichromatism in this species. We also tested whether patterning and coloration were correlated with body size or relative body mass. Males had significantly whiter saddles and higher relative proportions of white coloration on their dorsal surfaces than did females. Furthermore, the relative proportion of white areas on the dorsum was positively correlated to body condition in both males and females. Body size was not correlated with hue or proportion of white area on the dorsum. To our knowledge, we report the first confirmation of sexually dimorphic coloration in the ambystomatid salamander family, extending the known distribution of sexual dichromatism in the order Caudata.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".