MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127323677 · doi:10.1139/f02-165

Migration, speciation, and the evolution of diadromy in anguillid eels

2002· article· en· W2127323677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katsumi Tsukamoto, J. Aoyama, Michael J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpawn (biology)AnguillidaeAnguilla rostrataJapanese eelEcologyBiologySeamountTemperate climateFish migrationBiological dispersalHabitatPopulationAllopatric speciationFisheryGeographyJaponica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent findings and hypotheses about the migration, spawning ecology, phylogenetic relationships, and possible mechanisms of speciation of anguillid eels are overviewed. The offshore distribution and otolith microstructure of small leptocephali suggest that the Japanese eel Anguilla japonica may spawn at seamounts west of the Mariana Islands in the western North Pacific during the new moon of each month from April to November. Some temperate eels have been found to remain in coastal areas after recruitment without a freshwater growth phase (ocean residents or "sea eels"), showing flexible patterns of migratory histories. Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that the tropical eel Anguilla borneensis from the Borneo Island region is the most ancestral species. Every eel species or population has its own migration loop (migration route or life cycle) that connects their spawning area and growth habitats. Spatial and temporal shifts in these migration loops could cause separation into subpopulations, or speciation. Therefore, the large-scale migration of temperate eels probably evolved from local migrations of tropical eels as a result of long-distance dispersal of leptocephali from spawning sites in tropical waters of low latitude to temperate growth habitats at higher latitudes.

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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations204
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207