MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Morphological integration and developmental progress during fish ontogeny in two contrasting habitats

2009· article· en· W2122593619 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution & Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntogenyJuvenileBiologySalvelinusMorphometricsHabitatHeterochronyEcologyZoologyFluctuating asymmetryDevelopmental geneticsEvolutionary biologyFish <Actinopterygii>TroutFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morphological integration can respond to environmental conditions, a response that may be dynamic through ontogeny. Among fishes, brook charrs (Salvelinus fontinalis) display a trophic polymorphism that makes it a good species for analyzing the ontogeny of morphological integration. To better understand the processes regulating variation and integration, we assess the ontogenetic dynamics of covariances and developmental progress for populations of S. fontinalis from two habitats that differ in water velocity; lake and stream. Geometric morphometrics and developmental progress were evaluated on 751 and 198 specimens, respectively. In both habitats, most ossification events occur before the transition from alevin to juvenile. This threshold defines two distinct periods. During the first period representing free-embryos and alevins, there are important shape changes and rapid ossification, integration tends to be relatively low and decreasing and the variance of shape drastically decreases. During the juvenile period, the rate of shape change decreases and the onset of ossification is nearly complete, plus integration increases and shape variance stabilizes. While we find two distinct developmental periods, we nonetheless find a notable stability underlying the ontogenetic dynamics of variability as well as gradual change in the structure of covariation within each habitat. Our results imply that the variability of juvenile body shape does not seem to retain signals of variability determined early in ontogeny and warrants caution in using juvenile as guides to the earlier causes of variability. Overall, this study highlights the difficulty of inferring causes of integration from studies of static covariance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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