Body size and segmentation patterns in free-living and parasitic polychaetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taxa that include both free-living and parasitic lineages present opportunities to examine if and how the life-history traits of parasitic organisms have diverged from those of their free-living relatives. In a comparative analysis the body sizes and numbers of body segments of parasitic polychaetes of the family Oenonidae were compared with those of free-living polychaetes from closely related families. There was no difference in body length between oenonids and free-living polychaetes. However, the parasitic oenonids attain, on average, a much higher number of body segments than their free-living counterparts. The number of segments per unit body length is also much higher in oenonids than in related free-living polychaetes. This suggests that new segments are produced at a higher rate or for longer periods in oenonids than in free-living polychaetes, in which the proliferation of new segments slows down over time to allow for the segments to grow in size. Given that each segment can produce gametes late in the life of the worm, the proliferation of segments in oenonids may be an adaptation to their parasitic life-style.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".