MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Habitat fragmentation and body‐shape variation of African hind<i>Cephalopholis taeniops</i>(Valenciennes) in an archipelago system (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic Ocean)

2008· article· en· W2123142434 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. MEDINA, Jean Brèthes, Jean‐Marie Sévigny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchipelagoCape verdeBiologyAllometryOntogenyPopulationEcologyHabitatCapeZoologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Morphological variations of the serranid fish Cephalopholis taeniops were studied in relation to habitat fragmentation in the Cape Verde Archipelago. While a significant allometric effect existed (11·5% of total body‐shape variation), differences in morphology associated with sex and ontogeny were not significant. MANOVA followed by CVA showed that each island presented a particular allometric pattern. Average body shape for all islands was well discriminated with CVA models. Pair‐wise comparisons of the ontogeny of morphological change between islands revealed that northern islands (Santo Antão, São Vicente and Santa Luzia) along with Boavista Island showed a similar direction in shape ontogeny, while all other paired comparisons indicated different ontogenetic patterns. When comparing directions of inter‐population shape changes, individuals from Fogo Island, the southernmost locality, departed far from the orthogonal relation, suggesting that they were undergoing independent body‐shape trajectories. Physical isolation by geographic distance and depth was positively correlated with morphological divergence among populations from different islands. This finding supports the hypothesis that habitat fragmentation in the Cape Verde Archipelago can be interpreted in terms of marine population structure.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207