MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621121326 · doi:10.1111/mec.14193

Plasticity contributes to a fine‐scale depth gradient in sticklebacks’ visual system

2017· article· en· W2621121326 on OpenAlexaff
Thor Veen, Chad D. Brock, Diana J. Rennison, Daniel I. Bolnick

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyScale (ratio)PlasticityPhenotypic plasticityEvolutionary biologyEcologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The light environment influences an animal's ability to forage, evade predators, and find mates, and consequently is known to drive local adaptation of visual systems. However, the light environment may also vary over fine spatial scales at which genetic adaptation is difficult. For instance, in aquatic systems, the available wavelengths of light change over a few metres depth. Do animals plastically adjust their visual system to such small-scale environmental light variation? Here, we show that in three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), opsin gene expression (an important determinant of colour vision) changes over a 2-m vertical gradient in nest depth. By experimentally altering the light environment using light filters to cover enclosures in a lake, we found that opsin expression can be adjusted on a short time frame (weeks) in response to the local light environment. This is to our knowledge the smallest spatial scale on which visual adjustments through opsin expression have been recorded in a natural setting along a continuously changing light environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207