MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119270626 · doi:10.1139/f99-250

Population differences in the onset of cranial ossification in pumpkinseed (<i>Lepomis gibbosus</i>), a potential cost of rapid growth

2000· article· en· W2119270626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeff Arendt, David Sloan Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLepomisOssificationBiologyHatchingPopulationPredationZoologyAnatomyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interspecific comparisons suggest that a trade-off exists between development and somatic growth rate. We provide evidence for a trade-off between cranial ossification and growth rate within a single species, the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). We compare fish derived from two populations known to differ in their somatic growth rates. Fish were hatched from eggs and maintained under common conditions. Juveniles were sampled weekly through the first 8 weeks after hatching, preserved, and stained to determine the onset of ossification of superficial cranial bones. Fish from both populations showed a similar pattern of ossification in the cranial bones, but fish from the fast-growth population showed an average delay of 2 days in the onset of ossification for each bone. As a result, the fast-growth fish were both older and larger at each stage of ossification. We suggest that such a delay in ossification may have fitness effects through feeding ability, swimming ability, and (or) defense against predators.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations77
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207