Fatty acid profiles of yolk lipids of five species of wild ducks (Anatidae) differing in dietary preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fatty acid compositions of yolk lipids of eggs collected in the wild from five species of ducks (Anatidae) showing a range of dietary preferences, the king eider Somateria spectabilis, the lesser scaup Aythya affinis, the mallard Anas platyrhynchos, the green‐winged teal Anas crecca and the gadwall Anas streperi, are reported. For all five species, the fatty acid profiles conformed to a similar pattern, characterized by relatively balanced proportions (w/w) of arachidonic (6.7–9.1%) and docosahexaenoic (5.9–7.0%) acids in yolk phospholipid. This contrasts markedly with the yolk phospholipid of current commercially‐reared ducks where the proportion of arachidonic acid can be 10 times greater than that of docosahexaenoic acid. It was most notable that the similarities in yolk fatty acid profiles among the different species of wild ducks were achieved despite the considerable interspecies variation in dietary modes. It seems that, in this instance, genetic factors deriving from a common phylogeny may be more important than dietary differences in determining the fatty acid composition of yolk.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".