An attempt to differentiate sympatric<i>Ichthyomyzon</i>ammocoetes using meristic, morphological, pigmentation, and gonad analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed characters that could be used to differentiate ammocoetes of chestnut lamprey ( Ichthyomyzon castaneus Girard, 1858), northern brook lamprey ( Ichthyomyzon fossor Reighard and Cummins, 1916), and silver lamprey ( Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Hubbs and Trautman, 1937). We sampled ammocoetes of the three species from 25 streams around the Great Lakes. Existing genetic markers were used to identify chestnut lamprey for this study, but the lack of genetic markers for silver and northern brook lampreys forced our preliminary classification of these two species to be based on stream-specific catch records of adults. Comparison of ammocoete gonads was inconclusive as a technique to distinguish between these two species. Other characters examined (including pigmentation patterns, morphometric characters, body shape, and myomere counts) varied significantly among species, but were inadequate for use as diagnostic characters because of high intraspecific variation and overlapping ranges. Chestnut lamprey ammocoetes were sometimes distinguishable by their pigmented lateral line organs, but this character was not always apparent. The lack of distinguishing characteristics makes existing taxonomic keys misleading for identifying Ichthyomyzon lamprey larvae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".