MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735086357 · doi:10.1002/jmor.20729

The morphology of the male reproductive system, spermatogenesis and the spermatozoon of <i>Daphnia magna</i> (Crustacea: Branchiopoda)

2017· article· en· W2735086357 on OpenAlexafffund
Maggie Wuerz, Erwin Huebner, Judith D. Huebner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Winnipeg
KeywordsBiologySpermatozoonSpermatogenesisDaphnia magnaBasal laminaBranchiopodaSomatic cellReproductive biologyGameteGerm cellAnatomyMorphology (biology)SpermZoologyCrustaceanUltrastructureCell biologyCladoceraEmbryoInternal medicineEndocrinologyHuman fertilizationGeneticsEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyses the histological and cellular morphology of the testis and sperm development in the male Daphnia magna Straus 1820. Due to the rarity of males and predominately parthenogenetic lifecycle of Daphnia, there has been limited detailed information on males in contrast to the well-studied female. Using light and electron microscopy approaches, we describe the morphology of the testis during the progression from an immature to mature testis. The testis has an encasing muscular mesh sheath outside the basal lamina, beneath which is a thin somatic epithelial cell layer. Internal to the epithelium are the spermatogonial stem cells and subsequent syncytial clusters of the germ cells as they progress through spermatogenesis; spermatozoa occupy the entire testis in sexually mature D. magna. We describe the structure of developing and mature spermatozoa; mature spermatozoa are non-flagellated, ovoid in shape with plasmalemma filapodia and are encased in an extracellular capsule.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207