The effect of stimulus type and background noise on hearing abilities of the round goby <i>Neogobius melanostomus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The auditory abilities of the round goby Neogobius melanostomus were quantified using auditory evoked potential recordings, using tone bursts and conspecific call stimuli. Fish were tested over a range of sizes to assess effects of growth on hearing ability. Tests were also run with and without background noise to assess the potential effects of masking in a natural setting. Neogobius melanostomus detected tone bursts from 100 to 600 Hz with no clear best frequency in the pressure domain but were most sensitive to 100 Hz tone stimuli when examined in terms of particle acceleration. Responses to a portion of the N. melanostomus call occurred at a significantly lower threshold than responses to pure tone stimulation. There was no effect of size on N. melanostomus hearing ability, perhaps due to growth of the otolith keeping pace with growth of the auditory epithelium. Neogobius melanostomus were masked by both ambient noise and white noise, but not until sound pressure levels were relatively high, having a 5-10 dB threshold shift at noise levels of 150 dB re 1 µPa and higher but not at lower noise levels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".