MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of preservation on pigmentation and length measurements in larval lampreys

2006· article· en· W2130681663 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser B. Neave, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Margaret F. Docker, Diana Noakes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLarvaZoologyFixation (population genetics)AnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of two methods of preservation (fixation and storage in 10% formalin, and fixation in 10% formalin followed by storage in 95% alcohol) on pigmentation and morphometric features used for identification of larval Ichthyomyzon lampreys were analysed. Both short‐term (3 weeks) and long‐term (6 months) studies were conducted using digital analysis of images of fresh and preserved lampreys. Six standard morphometric lengths and 10 areas of pigmentation were analysed. All measurements were significantly affected by preservation. Preservative type affected pigmentation and morphometric characteristics differently, and characters were affected to different degrees. Multiple measurements over time showed that almost all changes occurred within 3 weeks of preservation. Regression equations allowed for accurate correction of preservation effects on morphometric measurements, but the effects on pigmentation levels were less predictable. Effects of preservation on larval lampreys need to be considered when comparing fresh and preserved specimens because they influence critical identification features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207