Bias, precision and validation of ageing 0+ European barbel Barbus barbus (L.) from their otoliths
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
Abstract The European barbel Barbus barbus L. is considered a ‘flag’ species for river conservation and sport fishing, but it is increasingly threatened in its native range of distribution. To provide accurate age estimates during early life for appropriate management and conservation measures, the bias and precision of otolith (daily) micro-increment counts were evaluated and age determinations validated on laboratory-reared embryos and larvae. Out of the three pairs of otoliths, the lapillus and sagitta provided reliable age estimates for free embryos and larvae up to 17 days of (known) age post-fertilisation, with first micro-increment formation occurring five days postfertilisation. On the other hand, micro-increments on asterisci formed only 16–17 days post-fertilisation. There was agreement in microincrement counts based on lapilli and sagittae, but not between interpreters, indicating that despite consistency between the two pairs of otoliths extensive training and experience are required for reliable age interpretation. The ability to estimate the ages of 0+ B. barbus from their otoliths will contribute to a better understanding of growth rates from both hatchery-stocked and native/introduced cohorts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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