Reproduction of the angular angel shark (Squatina guggenheim): geographic differences, reproductive cycle, and sexual dimorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Colonello, J. H., Lucifora, L. O., and Massa, A. M. 2007. Reproduction of the angular angel shark (Squatina guggenheim): geographic differences, reproductive cycle, and sexual dimorphism. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 131–140. The reproductive ecology of Squatina guggenheim from two coastal areas in South America is analysed. In both sexes, individuals from ER (El Rincón coastal system, the more southern area) attained a larger maximum total length (LT) and a heavier weight at a given length than those from LP (La Plata River estuary). Females from ER mature at a significantly larger LT than females from LP. These patterns could be explained by an advantage of larger body size at higher latitudes in providing more reserves for winter, because individuals from ER have a larger liver than those from LP. Spines in the outer part of the pectoral fins were observed only in adult males. Fecundity increased with female total length. Females have a 3-y reproductive cycle, consisting of 10–12 months of gestation and 2 y of oocyte maturation. The embryonic growth fits the Gompertz model. Birth is in November or December, as inferred from embryo size and the presence of neonates and young of the year. Densities of S. guggenheim in LP peaked in spring and summer along the Uruguayan coast, suggesting a seasonal movement perpendicular to the shore. The reproductive pattern found suggests a population with low productivity.
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".