Dorsal-fin spine growth of <i>Heterodontus portusjacksoni</i>: a general model that applies to dorsal-fin spines of chondrichthyans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective model of dorsal-fin spine growth in chondrichthyans is devised by studying the growth of spines from captive and wild Heterodontus portusjacksoni injected with several fluorochromes. Evidence was found for only two dentine layers in the spine trunk of H. portusjacksoni, contrasting with conjectures about the presence of a third middle dentine layer in some squalids. The spines have three simultaneous growth zones. The first growth zone is along the internal edge of the inner trunk dentine layer, where growth bands are deposited towards the centre (centripetally), increasing spine length and width by pressure against the cartilage rod. The second growth zone is along the external edge of the outer trunk dentine layer at the spine base, where growth bands are deposited in an opposite direction to the centre (centrifugally), increasing spine width. A third growth zone at the base of the cap enables downward expansion over the trunk. The model of concentric cones describes correctly the inner dentine layer growth pattern, whereas the outer dentine layer growth increments appear to be related to the external bands on the surface of the trunk. Growth increments from the three growth zones of the spine are all potentially useful for age estimation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".