Genome size estimates for crustaceans using Feulgen image analysis densitometry of ethanol‐preserved tissues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crustaceans are enormously diverse both phylogenetically and ecologically, but they remain substantially underrepresented in the existing genome size database. An expansion of this dataset could be facilitated if it were possible to obtain genome size estimates from ethanol-preserved specimens. In this study, two tests were performed in order to assess the reliability of genome size data generated using preserved material. First, the results of estimates based on flash-frozen versus ethanol-preserved material were compared across 37 species of crustaceans that differ widely in genome size. Second, a comparison was made of specimens from a single species that had been stored in ethanol for 1-14 years. In both cases, the use of gill tissue in Feulgen image analysis densitometry proved to be a very viable approach. This finding is of direct relevance to both new studies of field-collected crustaceans as well as potential studies based on existing collections.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it