Gill rakers and teeth of three pleuronectiform species (Teleostei) of the Baltic Sea: a microichthyological approach; pp. 21–46
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this microichthyological study the teeth and bony cores of gill rakers of three pleuronectiform species [European plaice Pleuronectes platessa Linnaeus, 1758 and European flounder Platichthys flesus trachurus (Duncer, 1892), both in the Pleuronectidae, and turbot Scophthalmus maximus (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Scophthalmidae] of the Baltic Sea are SEM imaged, described and compared for the first time. The shape and number of teeth in jaws and on pharyngeal tooth plates as well as the shape, size and number of the bony cores of gill rakers in these taxa differ. The European plaice and European flounder carry incisiform teeth anteriorly in their jaws and smoothly rounded, molariform teeth on pharyngeal tooth plates; the teeth of the plaice are more robust. The gill rakers have similar gross morphology, occurring as separate conical thornlets on gill arches. The bony cores of these thornlets (rakers) consist of vertical ribs with connective segments between them. The cores of gill rakers of the plaice and flounder reveal some differences in details. The plaice has cores with one peak, simple vertical ribs, and nodules on their lower thicker parts, while the flounder has cores with a side-branch and fine vertical ribs, which have parallel ribbing and tend to twist around the lower part of cores. The teeth of the jaws and pharyngeal tooth plates and the raker cores of the turbot are completely different from those of the plaice and flounder. In the turbot two main types of complex gill rakers are attached to the gill arches: one type has ‘sail’-shaped, high elements with one to two rows of fine conical teeth set in sockets; the other type has low tubercles with the same type of teeth. The differences among the species can be useful for studies of taxonomy and phylogeny, as well as for understanding their feeding habits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".