Lack of morphological differentiation in eastern (<i>Rhinichthys atratulus</i>) and western (<i>Rhinichthys obtusus</i>) blacknose dace in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested whether eastern (Rhinichthys atratulus (Herman, 1804)) and western (Rhinichthys obtusus Agassiz, 1854) blacknose dace could be differentiated in Canada. Eastern, western, and southern forms of blacknose dace had been considered subspecies until recently, when separation of eastern and western species was accepted (J.S. Nelson et al. 2004. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 29). However, no study has examined morphological differences in purported diagnostic characters between the two species in Canada. Mensural, meristic, and colouration pattern characters purported to distinguish the two species were measured for blacknose dace across their Canadian range, including likely zones of sympatry. Univariate and multivariate analyses of morphological characters could not distinguish between individuals in allopatric populations from eastern and western regions. Variation among individuals within sympatric populations did not differ significantly from the variation among individuals within allopatric populations, providing no evidence of divergence of the species in sympatry. The delineation of eastern and western species using morphology is not supported by this study, given the lack of differentiation in key distinguishing characters within the Canadian range of the species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".