A survey on Luciobarbus mystaceus (Pallas, 1814) by geometric morphometric methods depend on gender, age and season variations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is made to find out the variations of the outer body morphology of Luciobarbus mystaceus (Pallas, 1814) belonging Cyprinidae family that lived in Tigris river system between January 2015 and December 2015 with geometric morphometric methods depending on gender, age and season. After being caught with fishnet having different meshes and brought to the laboratory, in total 58 (21♀♀, 37♂♂) L. mystaceus samples were photographed from lateral by Sony digital camera. On the basis of photography, 12 landmarks were taken with tpsDig ver. 2.26 and later on the database that contains this landmark coordinates were analyzed by Principal component analysis (PCA), Canonical Variation Analysis) and Distribution Analysis (DA) with MorphoJ ver. 1.06d program. In the CV analysis between age groups; in terms of Mahalanobis distance, VI age group statistically has different forms in comparison with III, IV and V age groups. III-V age groups also statistically have different forms in comparison with other groups except VII and VI age groups. In the seasonal CV analysis, winter group statistically has different forms in comparison with autumn, summer and spring groups in terms of Mahalanobis distance. In CVA Mahalanobis distance between the sexes is 2.0 and the permutation value depending on this; p<0.0001. The difference is statistically significant and the distribution between males and females is significant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".