Hybridization between char species (<i>Salvelinus alpinus</i> and <i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>): a fast track for novel allometric trajectories
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization between closely related species can generate genetic and phenotypic variation, providing valuable biological material to assess the physiological impact of the structural or functional variability of different organs. In the present study, we examined growth rates of various organs and whole body in brook char, Arctic char and their reciprocal hybrids over a period of 281 days. Parental species achieved significantly higher body mass than their hybrids. Hybridization significantly reduced the relative size of the heart, liver and spleen. The relative size of pyloric caeca did not differ among the four groups. The observed lower growth performance of the hybrids compared to parental species strongly suggests that divergence in the relative size of digestive organs, liver and heart partly dictate growth capacity. Our results also suggest that the increased variability achieved through hybridization may prove useful in a genetic selection program.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it