Analysis of Three Cisco Forms (Coregonus, Salmonidae) from Lake Saganaga and Adjacent Lakes Near the Minnesota/Ontario Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on examination of 655 ciscoes from Lake Saganaga, a Minnesota/Ontario border lake, three forms, about 90% separable on gill raker counts, are present. Form L, with the lowest gill raker counts (26–40, mean = 31.9, n = 96) is tentatively identified as Coregonus zenithicus. Form M, with intermediate gill raker counts (36–50, mean = 43.1, n = 92) was the only cisco anticipated to occur in lakes of the region and is assumed to represent Coregonus artedi. Form H, with 45–70 gill rakers, mean = 56.1, n = 467, is the most common cisco in the lake. We argue that the appropriate name for this form is Coregonus nipigon. Additional differences among the three forms include lateral-line scale and vertebral counts, gill raker length, body shape, fin pigmentation, size at sexual maturity, and maximum size. Seagull Lake, affluent to Lake Saganaga, contained only C. artedi (n = 108). Gunflint and Magnetic Lakes, also affluents to Lake Saganaga, contained C. artedi (n = 19) and C. zenithicus (n = 29). Lake Saganagons, immediately downstream of Lake Saganaga, based on only eight available specimens, appears to contain C. nipigon (7) and C. artedi (1).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".