MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887770438 · doi:10.22069/ijerr.2017.3869

Biological characteristics of autumn and spring runs of Caspiomyzon wagneri into the Shirood River, Iran

2017· article· en· W2887770438 on OpenAlexaff
Fakhrieh Shirood Mirzaie, Renaud Claud B., Rasoul Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpring (device)Gonadosomatic IndexFisheryPopulationSpawn (biology)GeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyHydrology (agriculture)GeologyDemographyFecundity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various biological characteristics were compared between autumn and spring runs of Caspiomyzon wagneri migrating into the Shirood River, in an attempt to determine whether these were reproductively isolated. Two spawning runs of the same lamprey species in a single river are apparently unique to the Shirood. The autumn sample collected between 21 October and 1 November 2009 comprised 15 adults and the spring sample collected between 22 March and 18 April 2009 comprised 38 adults. While spawning was not witnessed, the significantly shorter mean total length of at least 40 cm in both males and females, and the significantly higher gonadosomatic index in females of the autumn run versus the spring run suggest that the former is closer to spawning than the latter. If one assumes a single spawning population per year in the river, the report by Nazari and Abdoli (2010) of recently spent individuals of Caspian lamprey collected in the Shirood River during April, would therefore imply that the spawning period is remarkably protracted. In order to test this hypothesis, the spawning sites need to be searched for higher upstream over the entire year, particularly in areas where suitable spawning substrate of gravel and sand occurs

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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207