MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605345494 · doi:10.2983/035.036.0104

Possible Prediction of Scallop Swimming Styles from Shell and Adductor Muscle Morphology

2017· article· en· W2605345494 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabelle Tremblay, Helga Guderley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Shellfish Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of the Sunshine CoastMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsAdductor musclesScallopPecten maximusBiologyShell (structure)AnatomyFisheryBivalviaZoologyMolluscaMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modifications in shell structure, mantle, and adductor muscle are considered derived adaptations that allowed scallops to swim. This suggests that morphological properties of the adductor muscle and shell should relate to swimming performance in scallops. Various morphological characteristics of the shell (mass, aspect ratio, and volume between the valves) and the adductor muscle (size, position, and attachment to the shell) were measured in six scallop species (Amusium balloti, Placopecten magellanicus, Equichlamys bifrons, Pecten fumatus, Mimachlamys asperrima, and Crassadoma gigantea) with distinct swimming strategies, as documented by measurements of muscle use during induced escape responses. Morphological characteristics of the shell and adductor muscle differed markedly between the species, but did not always follow their swimming strategies. Principal components analysis revealed that shell width, shell and muscle masses, and associated morphological attributes were closely linked with swimming endurance. The intensity of the escape response was best predicted by the aspect ratio and the obliqueness of the adductor muscle.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Shellfish ResearchSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207