Otolith morphology varies between populations, sexes and male alternative reproductive tactics in a vocal toadfish <i>Porichthys notatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the morphology of sagittal otoliths of the plainfin midshipman fish Porichthys notatus was compared between populations, sexes and male alternative reproductive phenotypes (known as 'type I males or guarders' and 'type II males or sneakers'). Sagitta size increased with P. notatus size and changes in shape were also detected with increasing body size. Porichthys notatus sagittae begin as simple rounded structures, but then elongate as they grow and take on a more triangular and complex shape with several prominent notches and indentations along the dorsal and caudal edges. Moreover, the sagittae of the two geographically and genetically distinct populations of P. notatus (northern and southern) differed in shape. Porichthys notatus from the north possessed taller sagittae with deeper caudal indentations compared to P. notatus from the south. Sagitta shape also differed between females and males of the conventional guarder tactic. Furthermore, guarder males had smaller sagittae for their body size than did sneaker males or females. These differences in sagittal otolith morphology are discussed in relation to ecological and life history differences between the sexes and male tactics of this species. This is the first study to investigate teleost otolith morphology from the perspective of alternative reproductive tactics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".